<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_23_2342207</id>
	<title>BBC's Plan To Kick Open Source Out of UK TV</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1261581360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bluec writes <i>"Generally speaking, the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts: the license fee payer pays for these broadcasts. But the BBC has tried to get around this, asking Ofcom for <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/22/bbc-drm-cory-doctorow">permission to encrypt the 'metadata' on its broadcasts</a> &ndash; including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people and the 'tables' used by receivers to play back the video. As Ofcom gears up to a second consultation on the issue, there's one important question that the BBC must answer if the implications of this move are to be fully explored, namely: How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bluec writes " Generally speaking , the BBC is n't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts : the license fee payer pays for these broadcasts .
But the BBC has tried to get around this , asking Ofcom for permission to encrypt the 'metadata ' on its broadcasts    including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people and the 'tables ' used by receivers to play back the video .
As Ofcom gears up to a second consultation on the issue , there 's one important question that the BBC must answer if the implications of this move are to be fully explored , namely : How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bluec writes "Generally speaking, the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts: the license fee payer pays for these broadcasts.
But the BBC has tried to get around this, asking Ofcom for permission to encrypt the 'metadata' on its broadcasts – including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people and the 'tables' used by receivers to play back the video.
As Ofcom gears up to a second consultation on the issue, there's one important question that the BBC must answer if the implications of this move are to be fully explored, namely: How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541538</id>
	<title>Why does DRM exclude open source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the best encryption systems publish their source code. Real cryptographers don't trust closed source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the best encryption systems publish their source code .
Real cryptographers do n't trust closed source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the best encryption systems publish their source code.
Real cryptographers don't trust closed source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542036</id>
	<title>BBC is technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The digital ones and zeros of fate are upon you!  Everything is nothing without nothing to make it something!  Look Northward, for the binary train of chaos doth chuggeth, and chuggeth, and chuggeth some more!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The digital ones and zeros of fate are upon you !
Everything is nothing without nothing to make it something !
Look Northward , for the binary train of chaos doth chuggeth , and chuggeth , and chuggeth some more !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The digital ones and zeros of fate are upon you!
Everything is nothing without nothing to make it something!
Look Northward, for the binary train of chaos doth chuggeth, and chuggeth, and chuggeth some more!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541640</id>
	<title>Three and a half Billion Pounds</title>
	<author>tuppe666</author>
	<datestamp>1259772960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know this site has a OS bent but
<p>
Why if 3 1/2 Billion pounds of money why is the content ALL just simply available to those who should OWN it.
</p><p>
It does make 700 million selling the stuff, insultingly back to us either in DVD/CD or via other freeview channels.
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and the most watched show on iplayer is top gear.
</p><p>
I understand the need for tax but not for this</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this site has a OS bent but Why if 3 1/2 Billion pounds of money why is the content ALL just simply available to those who should OWN it .
It does make 700 million selling the stuff , insultingly back to us either in DVD/CD or via other freeview channels .
...and the most watched show on iplayer is top gear .
I understand the need for tax but not for this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this site has a OS bent but

Why if 3 1/2 Billion pounds of money why is the content ALL just simply available to those who should OWN it.
It does make 700 million selling the stuff, insultingly back to us either in DVD/CD or via other freeview channels.
...and the most watched show on iplayer is top gear.
I understand the need for tax but not for this</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543716</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261668960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?<br>My understanding is that the purpose of the DRM is so the BBC can have some control over the set-top boxes in order to provide things such as a quality control baseline and a standardised user interface, having had trouble with both in the Freeview boxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer , better ? My understanding is that the purpose of the DRM is so the BBC can have some control over the set-top boxes in order to provide things such as a quality control baseline and a standardised user interface , having had trouble with both in the Freeview boxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?My understanding is that the purpose of the DRM is so the BBC can have some control over the set-top boxes in order to provide things such as a quality control baseline and a standardised user interface, having had trouble with both in the Freeview boxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542794</id>
	<title>Re:The interesting question ...</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1261652640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, this basically means all of the broadcast can be copied and used in any way imaginable except for the part of the broadcast which is important to the handicapped ? This sounds sort of immoral to me.</p></div><p>It sounds sort of illegal to me, they'd essentially be forcing everyone who's deaf to go out and buy a new Freeview box which supports their encryption.  IANAL, but I'd have thought this would fly in the face of the Disability Discrimination Act.  Unless they also encrypt the EPG, that way everyone would have to upgrade if they wanted to actually be able to use the features which are the whole freaking point of digital TV.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , this basically means all of the broadcast can be copied and used in any way imaginable except for the part of the broadcast which is important to the handicapped ?
This sounds sort of immoral to me.It sounds sort of illegal to me , they 'd essentially be forcing everyone who 's deaf to go out and buy a new Freeview box which supports their encryption .
IANAL , but I 'd have thought this would fly in the face of the Disability Discrimination Act .
Unless they also encrypt the EPG , that way everyone would have to upgrade if they wanted to actually be able to use the features which are the whole freaking point of digital TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, this basically means all of the broadcast can be copied and used in any way imaginable except for the part of the broadcast which is important to the handicapped ?
This sounds sort of immoral to me.It sounds sort of illegal to me, they'd essentially be forcing everyone who's deaf to go out and buy a new Freeview box which supports their encryption.
IANAL, but I'd have thought this would fly in the face of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Unless they also encrypt the EPG, that way everyone would have to upgrade if they wanted to actually be able to use the features which are the whole freaking point of digital TV.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544142</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1261672080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the bbc are British, therfore they should be considered a plural noun, as per British usage.</p></div><p>Linguistically, no. If you're <i>American</i> you say "the BBC is". If you're <i>British</i> you say "the BBC are". The usage has everything to do with the local dialect and nothing at all to do with the subject matter being discussed. Americans speak American English, Brits speak British English. That's the entirety of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the bbc are British , therfore they should be considered a plural noun , as per British usage.Linguistically , no .
If you 're American you say " the BBC is " .
If you 're British you say " the BBC are " .
The usage has everything to do with the local dialect and nothing at all to do with the subject matter being discussed .
Americans speak American English , Brits speak British English .
That 's the entirety of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the bbc are British, therfore they should be considered a plural noun, as per British usage.Linguistically, no.
If you're American you say "the BBC is".
If you're British you say "the BBC are".
The usage has everything to do with the local dialect and nothing at all to do with the subject matter being discussed.
Americans speak American English, Brits speak British English.
That's the entirety of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541622</id>
	<title>Re:Why does DRM exclude open source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259772780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you put the key?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you put the key ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you put the key?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543016</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>Timmmm</author>
	<datestamp>1261658400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd just like to point out that AACS *hasn't* been cracked. At least not properly. They decryption keys have been found (09 F9...) but these are revokable, so those keys are now useless. In fact around 10 keys have been found and subsequently revoked.</p><p>It requires an on-going effort to keep the encryption 'broken', and whenever the MPAA issues a new key there is always going to be a delay before the new releases are decryptable.</p><p>I think a workable open source DRM system could be like this: All of your subscribers receive unique keys, like the keys that each Blu-ray player has. The media they buy is also watermarked and linked to their account &amp; credit card details. When something is leaked to bittorrent, you look up the watermark and can then ban that customer and revoke their keys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd just like to point out that AACS * has n't * been cracked .
At least not properly .
They decryption keys have been found ( 09 F9... ) but these are revokable , so those keys are now useless .
In fact around 10 keys have been found and subsequently revoked.It requires an on-going effort to keep the encryption 'broken ' , and whenever the MPAA issues a new key there is always going to be a delay before the new releases are decryptable.I think a workable open source DRM system could be like this : All of your subscribers receive unique keys , like the keys that each Blu-ray player has .
The media they buy is also watermarked and linked to their account &amp; credit card details .
When something is leaked to bittorrent , you look up the watermark and can then ban that customer and revoke their keys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd just like to point out that AACS *hasn't* been cracked.
At least not properly.
They decryption keys have been found (09 F9...) but these are revokable, so those keys are now useless.
In fact around 10 keys have been found and subsequently revoked.It requires an on-going effort to keep the encryption 'broken', and whenever the MPAA issues a new key there is always going to be a delay before the new releases are decryptable.I think a workable open source DRM system could be like this: All of your subscribers receive unique keys, like the keys that each Blu-ray player has.
The media they buy is also watermarked and linked to their account &amp; credit card details.
When something is leaked to bittorrent, you look up the watermark and can then ban that customer and revoke their keys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444</id>
	<title>The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259770740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So which is it, Brits? "The BBC isn't" or "The BBC aren't"? You're famous for saying "Microsoft are introducing" and the like, but why use the singular in this case? Is it because BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation and it'd be utterly stupid to say "The corporation aren't..."? What about other corporations who have their abbreviation with the C included? For example, would you say "NBC are" or "NBC is"? After all, it's talking about the National Broadcasting Corporation and wouldn't you look like a buffoon if you shouted out to your mate: "the corporation are".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So which is it , Brits ?
" The BBC is n't " or " The BBC are n't " ?
You 're famous for saying " Microsoft are introducing " and the like , but why use the singular in this case ?
Is it because BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation and it 'd be utterly stupid to say " The corporation are n't... " ?
What about other corporations who have their abbreviation with the C included ?
For example , would you say " NBC are " or " NBC is " ?
After all , it 's talking about the National Broadcasting Corporation and would n't you look like a buffoon if you shouted out to your mate : " the corporation are " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So which is it, Brits?
"The BBC isn't" or "The BBC aren't"?
You're famous for saying "Microsoft are introducing" and the like, but why use the singular in this case?
Is it because BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation and it'd be utterly stupid to say "The corporation aren't..."?
What about other corporations who have their abbreviation with the C included?
For example, would you say "NBC are" or "NBC is"?
After all, it's talking about the National Broadcasting Corporation and wouldn't you look like a buffoon if you shouted out to your mate: "the corporation are".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542402</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261686840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?</p></div><p>Because one of its services is its support for British programme-makers and independent production companies.  Those companies rely partly on revenue from DVD sales and international sales for their survival.  So, the BBC's DRM isn't just "because the nasty big-wigs in Hollywood want us to", but also part of their remit to foster artistic industry in the UK.  If Kudos, Tiger Aspect, Hat Trick, etc, say they need DRM if content is to be broadcast in better-than-DVD quality, that matters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer , better ? Because one of its services is its support for British programme-makers and independent production companies .
Those companies rely partly on revenue from DVD sales and international sales for their survival .
So , the BBC 's DRM is n't just " because the nasty big-wigs in Hollywood want us to " , but also part of their remit to foster artistic industry in the UK .
If Kudos , Tiger Aspect , Hat Trick , etc , say they need DRM if content is to be broadcast in better-than-DVD quality , that matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?Because one of its services is its support for British programme-makers and independent production companies.
Those companies rely partly on revenue from DVD sales and international sales for their survival.
So, the BBC's DRM isn't just "because the nasty big-wigs in Hollywood want us to", but also part of their remit to foster artistic industry in the UK.
If Kudos, Tiger Aspect, Hat Trick, etc, say they need DRM if content is to be broadcast in better-than-DVD quality, that matters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542088</id>
	<title>So the BBC are evil</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1259780520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly surprising with their censorship really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly surprising with their censorship really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly surprising with their censorship really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542288</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259783520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You dirty nigger</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You dirty nigger</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You dirty nigger</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544782</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1261676040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I think a workable open source DRM system could be like this: All of your subscribers receive unique keys, like the keys that each Blu-ray player has. The media they buy is also watermarked and linked to their account &amp; credit card details.</i> <br> <br>Because dishonest people would never use stolen credit cards... Assuming that the credit card companies didn't consider this to violate the terms and conditions of a merchant account.<br> <br> <i>When something is leaked to bittorrent, you look up the watermark and can then ban that customer and revoke their keys.</i> <br> <br>Watermarking (which is as much a hack of steganography as DRM is of encryption) may well be of little use if several copies (with different "watermarks") are available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a workable open source DRM system could be like this : All of your subscribers receive unique keys , like the keys that each Blu-ray player has .
The media they buy is also watermarked and linked to their account &amp; credit card details .
Because dishonest people would never use stolen credit cards... Assuming that the credit card companies did n't consider this to violate the terms and conditions of a merchant account .
When something is leaked to bittorrent , you look up the watermark and can then ban that customer and revoke their keys .
Watermarking ( which is as much a hack of steganography as DRM is of encryption ) may well be of little use if several copies ( with different " watermarks " ) are available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a workable open source DRM system could be like this: All of your subscribers receive unique keys, like the keys that each Blu-ray player has.
The media they buy is also watermarked and linked to their account &amp; credit card details.
Because dishonest people would never use stolen credit cards... Assuming that the credit card companies didn't consider this to violate the terms and conditions of a merchant account.
When something is leaked to bittorrent, you look up the watermark and can then ban that customer and revoke their keys.
Watermarking (which is as much a hack of steganography as DRM is of encryption) may well be of little use if several copies (with different "watermarks") are available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30545372</id>
	<title>Re:BBC the producer / BBC the distributer</title>
	<author>isorox</author>
	<datestamp>1261679820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The BBC is both producer and distributer. Maybe it should be split into "BBC TV" and "BBC Production"? </i></p><p>Something like "BBC Studios and Post Production Ltd".</p><p><i>After Dirac leading to a Windows only iPlayer I think we can dismiss their 'research' department.</i></p><p>Highfield (spit) was the one that pushed the crappy P2P windows program. After Brandon Butterworth and the rest of R&amp;D showed how easy a flash version was, it took over 95\% of the market in a few weeks. The crappy p2p download program was discontinued last year.</p><p><i>The license could pay basic infrastructure costs for "BBC TV" running the distribution infrastructure (transmitters, etc).</i></p><p>Red Bee, Crown Castle, Astra. The BBC doesn't do any distribution.</p><p><i>This would mean tax payers money isn't being sucked abroad for rubbish reality tv shows.</i></p><p>You and I consider them to be rubbish. Millions don't. You and I may consider Horizon to be good. Millions don't.</p><p><i>Most of the money goes into "BBC Production". This produces content as per their remit. </i></p><p>It does, although the BBC has to buy a (large) set amount of programs from independent companies like Hat Trick.</p><p><i>This then goes to to "BBC TV" and is played for free, or is licensed to foreign TV stations.</i></p><p>Perhaps via BBC Worldwide?</p><p><i>As soon as it is broadcast it is then put up for free on the BBC torrent site unrestricted. It is not even worth blocking foreign IPs, getting more private worldwide viewers will put pressure on other TV stations to license the content from the BBC.</i></p><p>Which would reduce the amount of money the BBC from worldwide, and scupper the production of things like "Life", or any natural history programs.</p><p><i>Just food for thought, I am sure there may be problems with this I haven't thought of.</i></p><p>Millions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is both producer and distributer .
Maybe it should be split into " BBC TV " and " BBC Production " ?
Something like " BBC Studios and Post Production Ltd " .After Dirac leading to a Windows only iPlayer I think we can dismiss their 'research ' department.Highfield ( spit ) was the one that pushed the crappy P2P windows program .
After Brandon Butterworth and the rest of R&amp;D showed how easy a flash version was , it took over 95 \ % of the market in a few weeks .
The crappy p2p download program was discontinued last year.The license could pay basic infrastructure costs for " BBC TV " running the distribution infrastructure ( transmitters , etc ) .Red Bee , Crown Castle , Astra .
The BBC does n't do any distribution.This would mean tax payers money is n't being sucked abroad for rubbish reality tv shows.You and I consider them to be rubbish .
Millions do n't .
You and I may consider Horizon to be good .
Millions do n't.Most of the money goes into " BBC Production " .
This produces content as per their remit .
It does , although the BBC has to buy a ( large ) set amount of programs from independent companies like Hat Trick.This then goes to to " BBC TV " and is played for free , or is licensed to foreign TV stations.Perhaps via BBC Worldwide ? As soon as it is broadcast it is then put up for free on the BBC torrent site unrestricted .
It is not even worth blocking foreign IPs , getting more private worldwide viewers will put pressure on other TV stations to license the content from the BBC.Which would reduce the amount of money the BBC from worldwide , and scupper the production of things like " Life " , or any natural history programs.Just food for thought , I am sure there may be problems with this I have n't thought of.Millions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is both producer and distributer.
Maybe it should be split into "BBC TV" and "BBC Production"?
Something like "BBC Studios and Post Production Ltd".After Dirac leading to a Windows only iPlayer I think we can dismiss their 'research' department.Highfield (spit) was the one that pushed the crappy P2P windows program.
After Brandon Butterworth and the rest of R&amp;D showed how easy a flash version was, it took over 95\% of the market in a few weeks.
The crappy p2p download program was discontinued last year.The license could pay basic infrastructure costs for "BBC TV" running the distribution infrastructure (transmitters, etc).Red Bee, Crown Castle, Astra.
The BBC doesn't do any distribution.This would mean tax payers money isn't being sucked abroad for rubbish reality tv shows.You and I consider them to be rubbish.
Millions don't.
You and I may consider Horizon to be good.
Millions don't.Most of the money goes into "BBC Production".
This produces content as per their remit.
It does, although the BBC has to buy a (large) set amount of programs from independent companies like Hat Trick.This then goes to to "BBC TV" and is played for free, or is licensed to foreign TV stations.Perhaps via BBC Worldwide?As soon as it is broadcast it is then put up for free on the BBC torrent site unrestricted.
It is not even worth blocking foreign IPs, getting more private worldwide viewers will put pressure on other TV stations to license the content from the BBC.Which would reduce the amount of money the BBC from worldwide, and scupper the production of things like "Life", or any natural history programs.Just food for thought, I am sure there may be problems with this I haven't thought of.Millions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543042</id>
	<title>Re:Three and a half Billion Pounds</title>
	<author>CrackedButter</author>
	<datestamp>1261658880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't have to buy the DVD's you know.  Also I've noticed with iPlayer a lot of content keeps getting repeated so why buy the DVD's in the first place?  How many times are you really going to watch that DVD.  Define your real needs first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to buy the DVD 's you know .
Also I 've noticed with iPlayer a lot of content keeps getting repeated so why buy the DVD 's in the first place ?
How many times are you really going to watch that DVD .
Define your real needs first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to buy the DVD's you know.
Also I've noticed with iPlayer a lot of content keeps getting repeated so why buy the DVD's in the first place?
How many times are you really going to watch that DVD.
Define your real needs first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541710</id>
	<title>It can co-exist</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1259774220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no issue with open source players being given a API that allows them to make use of precompiled bits that allow decryption.  Hell even put some sort of identifying information into the recorded bits to keep people honest.  Not everything has to be open source.  If I pay for a TV broadcast then I expect to be able to play it back on the media player of my choice.  However, I will not agree to anyone trying to tell me I can not play it on my blackberry, xbox, iphone, because they've not been paid to allow it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no issue with open source players being given a API that allows them to make use of precompiled bits that allow decryption .
Hell even put some sort of identifying information into the recorded bits to keep people honest .
Not everything has to be open source .
If I pay for a TV broadcast then I expect to be able to play it back on the media player of my choice .
However , I will not agree to anyone trying to tell me I can not play it on my blackberry , xbox , iphone , because they 've not been paid to allow it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no issue with open source players being given a API that allows them to make use of precompiled bits that allow decryption.
Hell even put some sort of identifying information into the recorded bits to keep people honest.
Not everything has to be open source.
If I pay for a TV broadcast then I expect to be able to play it back on the media player of my choice.
However, I will not agree to anyone trying to tell me I can not play it on my blackberry, xbox, iphone, because they've not been paid to allow it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542330</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261685280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So which is it, Brits? "The BBC isn't" or "The BBC aren't"? You're famous for saying "Microsoft are introducing" and the like, but why use the singular in this case? Is it because BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation and it'd be utterly stupid to say "The corporation aren't..."? What about other corporations who have their abbreviation with the C included? For example, would you say "NBC are" or "NBC is"? After all, it's talking about the National Broadcasting Corporation and wouldn't you look like a buffoon if you shouted out to your mate: "the corporation are".</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/what.shtml" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/what.shtml</a> [bbc.co.uk] "The BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world. " But you're right: this is a US-centric blog hence should not cover non-US-centric news. And you're also right to add as an AC: I'd be ashamed as well if I spouted such nonsense. I guess you're the life of the office Christmas-party.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So which is it , Brits ?
" The BBC is n't " or " The BBC are n't " ?
You 're famous for saying " Microsoft are introducing " and the like , but why use the singular in this case ?
Is it because BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation and it 'd be utterly stupid to say " The corporation are n't... " ?
What about other corporations who have their abbreviation with the C included ?
For example , would you say " NBC are " or " NBC is " ?
After all , it 's talking about the National Broadcasting Corporation and would n't you look like a buffoon if you shouted out to your mate : " the corporation are " .
http : //www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/what.shtml [ bbc.co.uk ] " The BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world .
" But you 're right : this is a US-centric blog hence should not cover non-US-centric news .
And you 're also right to add as an AC : I 'd be ashamed as well if I spouted such nonsense .
I guess you 're the life of the office Christmas-party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So which is it, Brits?
"The BBC isn't" or "The BBC aren't"?
You're famous for saying "Microsoft are introducing" and the like, but why use the singular in this case?
Is it because BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation and it'd be utterly stupid to say "The corporation aren't..."?
What about other corporations who have their abbreviation with the C included?
For example, would you say "NBC are" or "NBC is"?
After all, it's talking about the National Broadcasting Corporation and wouldn't you look like a buffoon if you shouted out to your mate: "the corporation are".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/what.shtml [bbc.co.uk] "The BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world.
" But you're right: this is a US-centric blog hence should not cover non-US-centric news.
And you're also right to add as an AC: I'd be ashamed as well if I spouted such nonsense.
I guess you're the life of the office Christmas-party.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544002</id>
	<title>Re:The interesting question ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261671000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EPG is also encrypted.  Buy a general purpose DVB-S box here, and you get all the freesat channels but no programme guide - for that you have to buy a box with the freesat logo on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EPG is also encrypted .
Buy a general purpose DVB-S box here , and you get all the freesat channels but no programme guide - for that you have to buy a box with the freesat logo on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EPG is also encrypted.
Buy a general purpose DVB-S box here, and you get all the freesat channels but no programme guide - for that you have to buy a box with the freesat logo on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30567298</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261923660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bollocks it does.  What are they going to do?  Say they won't work with the BBC?  They might not like it, but they'll do  it with or without DRM because they'll still want to work with the BBC.  And if they don't maybe some new independent production company will appear to do the work they won't because of lack of DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bollocks it does .
What are they going to do ?
Say they wo n't work with the BBC ?
They might not like it , but they 'll do it with or without DRM because they 'll still want to work with the BBC .
And if they do n't maybe some new independent production company will appear to do the work they wo n't because of lack of DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bollocks it does.
What are they going to do?
Say they won't work with the BBC?
They might not like it, but they'll do  it with or without DRM because they'll still want to work with the BBC.
And if they don't maybe some new independent production company will appear to do the work they won't because of lack of DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542564</id>
	<title>OFCOM! Flipping useless!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261647420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's that f**ked then! OFCOM are toothless government body with no balls to face down the BBC. OFCOM will put in an objection, the gov and the BBC board will weasel out of it and the world becomes a sadder place!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's that f * * ked then !
OFCOM are toothless government body with no balls to face down the BBC .
OFCOM will put in an objection , the gov and the BBC board will weasel out of it and the world becomes a sadder place !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's that f**ked then!
OFCOM are toothless government body with no balls to face down the BBC.
OFCOM will put in an objection, the gov and the BBC board will weasel out of it and the world becomes a sadder place!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544270</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1261672860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The only thing DRM has is security by obscurity. When you freely hand out both the ciphertext *and* the key to whoever asks, you can't have anything else. And if it's open source, you don't get even that.</i> <br> <br>It's possible to write ofsucated computer code. Thing is that doing so tends to be several times harder to write &amp; debug. As well tending to being inefficent. In an open source environment such code is likely to be rewritten as soon as someone can work out what it actually does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing DRM has is security by obscurity .
When you freely hand out both the ciphertext * and * the key to whoever asks , you ca n't have anything else .
And if it 's open source , you do n't get even that .
It 's possible to write ofsucated computer code .
Thing is that doing so tends to be several times harder to write &amp; debug .
As well tending to being inefficent .
In an open source environment such code is likely to be rewritten as soon as someone can work out what it actually does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing DRM has is security by obscurity.
When you freely hand out both the ciphertext *and* the key to whoever asks, you can't have anything else.
And if it's open source, you don't get even that.
It's possible to write ofsucated computer code.
Thing is that doing so tends to be several times harder to write &amp; debug.
As well tending to being inefficent.
In an open source environment such code is likely to be rewritten as soon as someone can work out what it actually does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543154</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>dkh2</author>
	<datestamp>1261661280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>English... Do you speak it?</p></div><p>Of course not! I speak American... or, at least that's how I spell.</p><p>I'd be shouting <em>Boycott the BBC!</em> except then I'd have only the PBS News Hour for anything resembling news I can use..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>English... Do you speak it ? Of course not !
I speak American... or , at least that 's how I spell.I 'd be shouting Boycott the BBC !
except then I 'd have only the PBS News Hour for anything resembling news I can use. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>English... Do you speak it?Of course not!
I speak American... or, at least that's how I spell.I'd be shouting Boycott the BBC!
except then I'd have only the PBS News Hour for anything resembling news I can use..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542998</id>
	<title>Re:make the license fee voluntary</title>
	<author>s7uar7</author>
	<datestamp>1261658160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if you watch TV without subscribing, you will be hauled before a magistrate, fined, and maybe imprisoned. People are imprisoned all the time for doing this.</p></div><p>
Sorry, but that's bollocks.  The maximum penalty is a fine of &pound;1000 + costs.  You may go to prison for not paying the fine, but that's the same for any offence. No one has been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you watch TV without subscribing , you will be hauled before a magistrate , fined , and maybe imprisoned .
People are imprisoned all the time for doing this .
Sorry , but that 's bollocks .
The maximum penalty is a fine of   1000 + costs .
You may go to prison for not paying the fine , but that 's the same for any offence .
No one has been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you watch TV without subscribing, you will be hauled before a magistrate, fined, and maybe imprisoned.
People are imprisoned all the time for doing this.
Sorry, but that's bollocks.
The maximum penalty is a fine of £1000 + costs.
You may go to prison for not paying the fine, but that's the same for any offence.
No one has been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686</id>
	<title>The interesting question ...</title>
	<author>FrankDerKte</author>
	<datestamp>1259773740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and people are more interested in technical questions, for me the really interesting question is: How can they encrypt the "metadata" on broadcasts &ndash; including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people ?</p><p>I mean, this basically means all of the broadcast can be copied and used in any way imaginable except for the part of the broadcast which is important to the handicapped ? This sounds sort of immoral to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although this is / .
and people are more interested in technical questions , for me the really interesting question is : How can they encrypt the " metadata " on broadcasts    including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people ? I mean , this basically means all of the broadcast can be copied and used in any way imaginable except for the part of the broadcast which is important to the handicapped ?
This sounds sort of immoral to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although this is /.
and people are more interested in technical questions, for me the really interesting question is: How can they encrypt the "metadata" on broadcasts – including the assistive information used by deaf and blind people ?I mean, this basically means all of the broadcast can be copied and used in any way imaginable except for the part of the broadcast which is important to the handicapped ?
This sounds sort of immoral to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542320</id>
	<title>"Trusted Computing" rears its already cracked head</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1261685160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a good look at the "Palladium" toolkit, renamed "Trusted Computing". This is precisely what it was designed for: hardware specific encryption, with cautious escalation of privileges to run secured hardware with secured software. Its proprietary design broke down under virtualization, for reasons that would have been spotted much faster with an open source approach, much as the old "Clipper Chip" and "SkipJack" tools were discovered to be "flawed" because you could use your own keys to encrypt, rather than the federally registered keys the devices came with, and the ability of "Law Enforcement" to monitor it failed because the "Law Enforcement Authentication Field" was too short of a checksum, and they violated at least 3 privately held patents.</p><p>I'd expect the BBC to fail at this as they did with Iplayer: their goals are well understood, but they can't get past the demoware shown to middle management or non-technical VP's with "big plans for the future". They don't want people to record and re-broadcast the material in any way, and only Windows closed source media players try very hard to provide that. Even if I lived in the UK and paid my telivision tax, I'd prefer to get my Doctor Who off of Pirates Bay because it's a faster download and better organized than that weird cruft in Iplayer. I went over this last year with a Windows laptop owning compatriot, who walked me through the interface. I \_do not care\_ when the episode of Doctor Who was last broadcast so I can download that timeslot's authorized copy and see it for up to 7 days after broadcast. I want the \_episode\_, and I'd prefer the last broadcast one so that I can see it as long as possible. So does everyone else.</p><p>Does the menu allow anything like this, or even index the episodes by numerical order? No. Does Pirate Bay give the episode numbers so I can get the one I want? Why, yes! Yes, they do!!! And it downloads faster. So even if I have paid for Iplayer with my television tax, why would I want to use it? And guess whom the BBC is doomed to failure against unless they fix their interface so it works better?</p><p>I understand the legality issues of Pirate Bay and the Bittorrent issues, so I avoid it for non-public images and reserve it for PGP signed Linux DVD images. But once the video stream of Iplayer and its ilk is intercepted and the program can be digitally repackaged and Bittorrented, why are they wasting their time building the Iplayer infrastructure and paying developer and manager salaries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a good look at the " Palladium " toolkit , renamed " Trusted Computing " .
This is precisely what it was designed for : hardware specific encryption , with cautious escalation of privileges to run secured hardware with secured software .
Its proprietary design broke down under virtualization , for reasons that would have been spotted much faster with an open source approach , much as the old " Clipper Chip " and " SkipJack " tools were discovered to be " flawed " because you could use your own keys to encrypt , rather than the federally registered keys the devices came with , and the ability of " Law Enforcement " to monitor it failed because the " Law Enforcement Authentication Field " was too short of a checksum , and they violated at least 3 privately held patents.I 'd expect the BBC to fail at this as they did with Iplayer : their goals are well understood , but they ca n't get past the demoware shown to middle management or non-technical VP 's with " big plans for the future " .
They do n't want people to record and re-broadcast the material in any way , and only Windows closed source media players try very hard to provide that .
Even if I lived in the UK and paid my telivision tax , I 'd prefer to get my Doctor Who off of Pirates Bay because it 's a faster download and better organized than that weird cruft in Iplayer .
I went over this last year with a Windows laptop owning compatriot , who walked me through the interface .
I \ _do not care \ _ when the episode of Doctor Who was last broadcast so I can download that timeslot 's authorized copy and see it for up to 7 days after broadcast .
I want the \ _episode \ _ , and I 'd prefer the last broadcast one so that I can see it as long as possible .
So does everyone else.Does the menu allow anything like this , or even index the episodes by numerical order ?
No. Does Pirate Bay give the episode numbers so I can get the one I want ?
Why , yes !
Yes , they do ! ! !
And it downloads faster .
So even if I have paid for Iplayer with my television tax , why would I want to use it ?
And guess whom the BBC is doomed to failure against unless they fix their interface so it works better ? I understand the legality issues of Pirate Bay and the Bittorrent issues , so I avoid it for non-public images and reserve it for PGP signed Linux DVD images .
But once the video stream of Iplayer and its ilk is intercepted and the program can be digitally repackaged and Bittorrented , why are they wasting their time building the Iplayer infrastructure and paying developer and manager salaries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a good look at the "Palladium" toolkit, renamed "Trusted Computing".
This is precisely what it was designed for: hardware specific encryption, with cautious escalation of privileges to run secured hardware with secured software.
Its proprietary design broke down under virtualization, for reasons that would have been spotted much faster with an open source approach, much as the old "Clipper Chip" and "SkipJack" tools were discovered to be "flawed" because you could use your own keys to encrypt, rather than the federally registered keys the devices came with, and the ability of "Law Enforcement" to monitor it failed because the "Law Enforcement Authentication Field" was too short of a checksum, and they violated at least 3 privately held patents.I'd expect the BBC to fail at this as they did with Iplayer: their goals are well understood, but they can't get past the demoware shown to middle management or non-technical VP's with "big plans for the future".
They don't want people to record and re-broadcast the material in any way, and only Windows closed source media players try very hard to provide that.
Even if I lived in the UK and paid my telivision tax, I'd prefer to get my Doctor Who off of Pirates Bay because it's a faster download and better organized than that weird cruft in Iplayer.
I went over this last year with a Windows laptop owning compatriot, who walked me through the interface.
I \_do not care\_ when the episode of Doctor Who was last broadcast so I can download that timeslot's authorized copy and see it for up to 7 days after broadcast.
I want the \_episode\_, and I'd prefer the last broadcast one so that I can see it as long as possible.
So does everyone else.Does the menu allow anything like this, or even index the episodes by numerical order?
No. Does Pirate Bay give the episode numbers so I can get the one I want?
Why, yes!
Yes, they do!!!
And it downloads faster.
So even if I have paid for Iplayer with my television tax, why would I want to use it?
And guess whom the BBC is doomed to failure against unless they fix their interface so it works better?I understand the legality issues of Pirate Bay and the Bittorrent issues, so I avoid it for non-public images and reserve it for PGP signed Linux DVD images.
But once the video stream of Iplayer and its ilk is intercepted and the program can be digitally repackaged and Bittorrented, why are they wasting their time building the Iplayer infrastructure and paying developer and manager salaries?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480</id>
	<title>Double Check Your Premise &amp; Concentrate on Cas</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1259771160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Let me preface this by just notifying the reader that I am in <i>no way</i> condoning or endorsing BBC's actions.  I think they suck and are nothing but evil.  However, I find an overlooked argument that Doctorow chooses not to address.<p><div class="quote"><p>Now, generally speaking, the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts</p></div><p>Where is it written that the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts?  Is that a law I'm unaware of?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the licence fee payer pays for these broadcasts, and no licence fee payer woke up today wishing that the BBC had added restrictions to its programming.</p></div><p>I think that's a false statement.  I would bet there are some of the population wagering that <i>if</i> the BBC could encrypt the signal in some way, then they could better control one of the few revenues they have (aside from the taxpayer).  That being DVD sales and sales to a vast amount of the world--namely everyone who is not British.  <br> <br>

This might conflict statements about wanting to encourage open source but make no mistake about it, the BBC <b>does not</b> have to support open source.  Does it suck?  Most certainly.  Should you complain about it?  Of course.  But the logic here isn't just the desire to control the set top boxes or some ultra evil GNU/GPL destruction campaign.  No\%2</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me preface this by just notifying the reader that I am in no way condoning or endorsing BBC 's actions .
I think they suck and are nothing but evil .
However , I find an overlooked argument that Doctorow chooses not to address.Now , generally speaking , the BBC is n't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcastsWhere is it written that the BBC is n't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts ?
Is that a law I 'm unaware of ? the licence fee payer pays for these broadcasts , and no licence fee payer woke up today wishing that the BBC had added restrictions to its programming.I think that 's a false statement .
I would bet there are some of the population wagering that if the BBC could encrypt the signal in some way , then they could better control one of the few revenues they have ( aside from the taxpayer ) .
That being DVD sales and sales to a vast amount of the world--namely everyone who is not British .
This might conflict statements about wanting to encourage open source but make no mistake about it , the BBC does not have to support open source .
Does it suck ?
Most certainly .
Should you complain about it ?
Of course .
But the logic here is n't just the desire to control the set top boxes or some ultra evil GNU/GPL destruction campaign .
No \ % 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Let me preface this by just notifying the reader that I am in no way condoning or endorsing BBC's actions.
I think they suck and are nothing but evil.
However, I find an overlooked argument that Doctorow chooses not to address.Now, generally speaking, the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcastsWhere is it written that the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts?
Is that a law I'm unaware of?the licence fee payer pays for these broadcasts, and no licence fee payer woke up today wishing that the BBC had added restrictions to its programming.I think that's a false statement.
I would bet there are some of the population wagering that if the BBC could encrypt the signal in some way, then they could better control one of the few revenues they have (aside from the taxpayer).
That being DVD sales and sales to a vast amount of the world--namely everyone who is not British.
This might conflict statements about wanting to encourage open source but make no mistake about it, the BBC does not have to support open source.
Does it suck?
Most certainly.
Should you complain about it?
Of course.
But the logic here isn't just the desire to control the set top boxes or some ultra evil GNU/GPL destruction campaign.
No\%2
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542978</id>
	<title>Open source != gpl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261657560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although i dont agree with the idea, this proposal does not stop free or open source being used in the scenarios outlined in the article.<br>It makes it hard for GPL licensed code to be used in it, but not all free or open source code is licensed under GPL. there are alternatives (such as the BSD licence) and you could use open source code released under these licences (even a whole OS - not linux) in devices that would comply with what is suggested in the article</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although i dont agree with the idea , this proposal does not stop free or open source being used in the scenarios outlined in the article.It makes it hard for GPL licensed code to be used in it , but not all free or open source code is licensed under GPL .
there are alternatives ( such as the BSD licence ) and you could use open source code released under these licences ( even a whole OS - not linux ) in devices that would comply with what is suggested in the article</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although i dont agree with the idea, this proposal does not stop free or open source being used in the scenarios outlined in the article.It makes it hard for GPL licensed code to be used in it, but not all free or open source code is licensed under GPL.
there are alternatives (such as the BSD licence) and you could use open source code released under these licences (even a whole OS - not linux) in devices that would comply with what is suggested in the article</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543646</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1261668360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to be too much of a language nerd... but the underlying implications of this fascinate me -- it is indicative of a totally different cultural worldview.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to be too much of a language nerd... but the underlying implications of this fascinate me -- it is indicative of a totally different cultural worldview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to be too much of a language nerd... but the underlying implications of this fascinate me -- it is indicative of a totally different cultural worldview.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541774</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259775660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's no different from a closed source DRM solution, except that since it is OSS, it may have a stronger encryption system since it can't rely on security through obscurity.</p></div><p>You're operating under two assumptions that exec-types often do:</p><p>First, you assume it has something to do with the strength of the encryption. It doesn't. DVD CSS was pathetic, it's true, and can easily be brute-forced on modern machines -- but the original crack was someone obtaining the keys. Blu-Ray (and HD-DVD) were cracked not by finding some flaw in the algorithms used, but in finding the key (09 F9<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).</p><p>Second, it is <i>always</i> security through obscurity. In order to play the movie, you need the key. In order to copy the movie, you need the key. Thus, in order to play the movie, you need the same thing you'd need in order to copy the movie, and there is no way around that. All DRM around audiovisual content is crackable. <i>This is a flaw inherent in the nature of DRM.</i> It is something which will never be improved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no different from a closed source DRM solution , except that since it is OSS , it may have a stronger encryption system since it ca n't rely on security through obscurity.You 're operating under two assumptions that exec-types often do : First , you assume it has something to do with the strength of the encryption .
It does n't .
DVD CSS was pathetic , it 's true , and can easily be brute-forced on modern machines -- but the original crack was someone obtaining the keys .
Blu-Ray ( and HD-DVD ) were cracked not by finding some flaw in the algorithms used , but in finding the key ( 09 F9 ... ) .Second , it is always security through obscurity .
In order to play the movie , you need the key .
In order to copy the movie , you need the key .
Thus , in order to play the movie , you need the same thing you 'd need in order to copy the movie , and there is no way around that .
All DRM around audiovisual content is crackable .
This is a flaw inherent in the nature of DRM .
It is something which will never be improved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no different from a closed source DRM solution, except that since it is OSS, it may have a stronger encryption system since it can't rely on security through obscurity.You're operating under two assumptions that exec-types often do:First, you assume it has something to do with the strength of the encryption.
It doesn't.
DVD CSS was pathetic, it's true, and can easily be brute-forced on modern machines -- but the original crack was someone obtaining the keys.
Blu-Ray (and HD-DVD) were cracked not by finding some flaw in the algorithms used, but in finding the key (09 F9 ...).Second, it is always security through obscurity.
In order to play the movie, you need the key.
In order to copy the movie, you need the key.
Thus, in order to play the movie, you need the same thing you'd need in order to copy the movie, and there is no way around that.
All DRM around audiovisual content is crackable.
This is a flaw inherent in the nature of DRM.
It is something which will never be improved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542086</id>
	<title>Re:The interesting question ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259780520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they have many kinds of metadata that are critical for playback... like, say, MPEG headers and keys for XORd picture frames. Did I mention assistive information used by deaf and blind people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they have many kinds of metadata that are critical for playback... like , say , MPEG headers and keys for XORd picture frames .
Did I mention assistive information used by deaf and blind people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they have many kinds of metadata that are critical for playback... like, say, MPEG headers and keys for XORd picture frames.
Did I mention assistive information used by deaf and blind people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In American usage, companies are generally considered to be singular nouns. But the BBC is, err, I mean the bbc <i>are</i> British, therfore they should be considered a plural noun, as per British usage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In American usage , companies are generally considered to be singular nouns .
But the BBC is , err , I mean the bbc are British , therfore they should be considered a plural noun , as per British usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In American usage, companies are generally considered to be singular nouns.
But the BBC is, err, I mean the bbc are British, therfore they should be considered a plural noun, as per British usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542884</id>
	<title>A license paying viewer says...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261654980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... fuck off BBC. Whilst we pay for that content, we want it all unencrypted, the programs, the metadata, the whole shebang.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... fuck off BBC .
Whilst we pay for that content , we want it all unencrypted , the programs , the metadata , the whole shebang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... fuck off BBC.
Whilst we pay for that content, we want it all unencrypted, the programs, the metadata, the whole shebang.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541882</id>
	<title>outrage machine.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1259777040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>i see nothing of any plan against open source, nor any reason the BBC MUST address your open source concerns. how about the open source people try working with others instead of going on the attack immediately?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i see nothing of any plan against open source , nor any reason the BBC MUST address your open source concerns .
how about the open source people try working with others instead of going on the attack immediately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i see nothing of any plan against open source, nor any reason the BBC MUST address your open source concerns.
how about the open source people try working with others instead of going on the attack immediately?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541836</id>
	<title>Encryption Doesn't, DRM Does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259776500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When encrypting a connection to a remote computer, what you protect the data from are any external threat, like MITM.<br>When applying Digital Rights Management on a file, what you protect the data from are the people sitting at the other end of pipeline.</p><p>It's all about how to safely encrypt/decrypt files on *someone else's* computer. If the administrator had full access to their system,  he can see what the user is doing on his machine, obtain what's in his "My Documents",<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/usrname/bin/, or whatever. How can a user ensure the admin can't look into his private data?</p><p>Now, "the admin" is a consumer, and "the user" is license holder. How can a license holder ensure the consumer can't attach gdb to his own computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When encrypting a connection to a remote computer , what you protect the data from are any external threat , like MITM.When applying Digital Rights Management on a file , what you protect the data from are the people sitting at the other end of pipeline.It 's all about how to safely encrypt/decrypt files on * someone else 's * computer .
If the administrator had full access to their system , he can see what the user is doing on his machine , obtain what 's in his " My Documents " , /home/usrname/bin/ , or whatever .
How can a user ensure the admin ca n't look into his private data ? Now , " the admin " is a consumer , and " the user " is license holder .
How can a license holder ensure the consumer ca n't attach gdb to his own computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When encrypting a connection to a remote computer, what you protect the data from are any external threat, like MITM.When applying Digital Rights Management on a file, what you protect the data from are the people sitting at the other end of pipeline.It's all about how to safely encrypt/decrypt files on *someone else's* computer.
If the administrator had full access to their system,  he can see what the user is doing on his machine, obtain what's in his "My Documents", /home/usrname/bin/, or whatever.
How can a user ensure the admin can't look into his private data?Now, "the admin" is a consumer, and "the user" is license holder.
How can a license holder ensure the consumer can't attach gdb to his own computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541980</id>
	<title>wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259778900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the real question, and only question, in this issue is:  does the BBC have the right at all to put DRM on broadcasts since the broadcasts are publicly owned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the real question , and only question , in this issue is : does the BBC have the right at all to put DRM on broadcasts since the broadcasts are publicly owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the real question, and only question, in this issue is:  does the BBC have the right at all to put DRM on broadcasts since the broadcasts are publicly owned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542874</id>
	<title>Re:Double Check Your Premise &amp; Concentrate on</title>
	<author>kegon</author>
	<datestamp>1261654680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think that's a false statement. I would bet there are some of the population wagering that if the BBC could encrypt the signal in some way, then they could better control one of the few revenues they have (aside from the taxpayer). That being DVD sales and sales to a vast amount of the world--namely everyone who is not British.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

This is where you are totally wrong on two points.</p><p>1. There is not a legion of foreign people living in the UK solely to rip  BBC produced shows to sell to other countries illegally. The majority of people downloading BBC shows via P2P are British people who live/travel to other countries who have no other access. The iplayer is not available outside of the UK. Restricting access like this only hurts the people who have the right to access the content, as is the case with the majority of DRM and DVD region coding systems.</p><p>2. The BBC is funded by the TV licence system not taxpayers. This raises another two issues of my own:</p><p>a. The BBC should be funded by taxpayers with a simple small addition to existing taxes. This would be far cheaper and easier to collect than the current "we hunt you down if you don't pay" system.</p><p>b. The BBC should exist to provide 1. unbiased news and educational services, 2. to the British people only. The current remit seems to be "become a world TV service" with countless digital channels, dramas and documentaries. If this were the case then the suggested tax would be far smaller than the TV licence. The top priority should be providing TV to Britain, not making DVD sales.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's a false statement .
I would bet there are some of the population wagering that if the BBC could encrypt the signal in some way , then they could better control one of the few revenues they have ( aside from the taxpayer ) .
That being DVD sales and sales to a vast amount of the world--namely everyone who is not British .
This is where you are totally wrong on two points.1 .
There is not a legion of foreign people living in the UK solely to rip BBC produced shows to sell to other countries illegally .
The majority of people downloading BBC shows via P2P are British people who live/travel to other countries who have no other access .
The iplayer is not available outside of the UK .
Restricting access like this only hurts the people who have the right to access the content , as is the case with the majority of DRM and DVD region coding systems.2 .
The BBC is funded by the TV licence system not taxpayers .
This raises another two issues of my own : a. The BBC should be funded by taxpayers with a simple small addition to existing taxes .
This would be far cheaper and easier to collect than the current " we hunt you down if you do n't pay " system.b .
The BBC should exist to provide 1. unbiased news and educational services , 2. to the British people only .
The current remit seems to be " become a world TV service " with countless digital channels , dramas and documentaries .
If this were the case then the suggested tax would be far smaller than the TV licence .
The top priority should be providing TV to Britain , not making DVD sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's a false statement.
I would bet there are some of the population wagering that if the BBC could encrypt the signal in some way, then they could better control one of the few revenues they have (aside from the taxpayer).
That being DVD sales and sales to a vast amount of the world--namely everyone who is not British.
This is where you are totally wrong on two points.1.
There is not a legion of foreign people living in the UK solely to rip  BBC produced shows to sell to other countries illegally.
The majority of people downloading BBC shows via P2P are British people who live/travel to other countries who have no other access.
The iplayer is not available outside of the UK.
Restricting access like this only hurts the people who have the right to access the content, as is the case with the majority of DRM and DVD region coding systems.2.
The BBC is funded by the TV licence system not taxpayers.
This raises another two issues of my own:a. The BBC should be funded by taxpayers with a simple small addition to existing taxes.
This would be far cheaper and easier to collect than the current "we hunt you down if you don't pay" system.b.
The BBC should exist to provide 1. unbiased news and educational services, 2. to the British people only.
The current remit seems to be "become a world TV service" with countless digital channels, dramas and documentaries.
If this were the case then the suggested tax would be far smaller than the TV licence.
The top priority should be providing TV to Britain, not making DVD sales.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812</id>
	<title>Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1259776260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer , better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does DRM help the BBC provide their services to the taxpayer, better ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542364</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261686000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because US TV and movie studios claim they won't accept the BBC's money if they don't.</p><p>Giggle snort.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because US TV and movie studios claim they wo n't accept the BBC 's money if they do n't.Giggle snort.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because US TV and movie studios claim they won't accept the BBC's money if they don't.Giggle snort.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541728</id>
	<title>Mutually exclusive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is FOSS mutually exclusive with DRM? You can use FOSS to sell software, make money, create DRM, and write Windows programs. These aren't activities we normally think of when it comes to FOSS, but they are generally allowed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is FOSS mutually exclusive with DRM ?
You can use FOSS to sell software , make money , create DRM , and write Windows programs .
These are n't activities we normally think of when it comes to FOSS , but they are generally allowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is FOSS mutually exclusive with DRM?
You can use FOSS to sell software, make money, create DRM, and write Windows programs.
These aren't activities we normally think of when it comes to FOSS, but they are generally allowed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543372</id>
	<title>BBC the producer / BBC the distributer</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1261665180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC is both producer and distributer. Maybe it should be split into "BBC TV" and "BBC Production"? After Dirac leading to a Windows only iPlayer I think we can dismiss their 'research' department.</p><p>The license could pay basic infrastructure costs for "BBC TV" running the distribution infrastructure (transmitters, etc). If they want to play the silly "ratings war" games they are playing, then they can buy up foreign commercial pap and be allowed to play a couple of adverts before and afterwards to pay for it. This would mean tax payers money isn't being sucked abroad for rubbish reality tv shows.</p><p>Most of the money goes into "BBC Production". This produces content as per their remit. This then goes to to "BBC TV" and is played for free, or is licensed to foreign TV stations. As soon as it is broadcast it is then put up for free on the BBC torrent site unrestricted. It is not even worth blocking foreign IPs, getting more private worldwide viewers will put pressure on other TV stations to license the content from the BBC.</p><p>Just food for thought, I am sure there may be problems with this I haven't thought of.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is both producer and distributer .
Maybe it should be split into " BBC TV " and " BBC Production " ?
After Dirac leading to a Windows only iPlayer I think we can dismiss their 'research ' department.The license could pay basic infrastructure costs for " BBC TV " running the distribution infrastructure ( transmitters , etc ) .
If they want to play the silly " ratings war " games they are playing , then they can buy up foreign commercial pap and be allowed to play a couple of adverts before and afterwards to pay for it .
This would mean tax payers money is n't being sucked abroad for rubbish reality tv shows.Most of the money goes into " BBC Production " .
This produces content as per their remit .
This then goes to to " BBC TV " and is played for free , or is licensed to foreign TV stations .
As soon as it is broadcast it is then put up for free on the BBC torrent site unrestricted .
It is not even worth blocking foreign IPs , getting more private worldwide viewers will put pressure on other TV stations to license the content from the BBC.Just food for thought , I am sure there may be problems with this I have n't thought of.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is both producer and distributer.
Maybe it should be split into "BBC TV" and "BBC Production"?
After Dirac leading to a Windows only iPlayer I think we can dismiss their 'research' department.The license could pay basic infrastructure costs for "BBC TV" running the distribution infrastructure (transmitters, etc).
If they want to play the silly "ratings war" games they are playing, then they can buy up foreign commercial pap and be allowed to play a couple of adverts before and afterwards to pay for it.
This would mean tax payers money isn't being sucked abroad for rubbish reality tv shows.Most of the money goes into "BBC Production".
This produces content as per their remit.
This then goes to to "BBC TV" and is played for free, or is licensed to foreign TV stations.
As soon as it is broadcast it is then put up for free on the BBC torrent site unrestricted.
It is not even worth blocking foreign IPs, getting more private worldwide viewers will put pressure on other TV stations to license the content from the BBC.Just food for thought, I am sure there may be problems with this I haven't thought of.Phillip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543630</id>
	<title>Re:The interesting question ...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1261668180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subtitles are easily substituted. Think of all the Anime we get here with faster (and often better) translation than the official release has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subtitles are easily substituted .
Think of all the Anime we get here with faster ( and often better ) translation than the official release has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subtitles are easily substituted.
Think of all the Anime we get here with faster (and often better) translation than the official release has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541750</id>
	<title>ofcom should deny this</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1259775000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the law (or the regulations applying to the BBC or whatever) prohibit encryption, said prohibition should apply to the entire signal as transmitted by the BBC over the air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the law ( or the regulations applying to the BBC or whatever ) prohibit encryption , said prohibition should apply to the entire signal as transmitted by the BBC over the air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the law (or the regulations applying to the BBC or whatever) prohibit encryption, said prohibition should apply to the entire signal as transmitted by the BBC over the air.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30557820</id>
	<title>Re:make the license fee voluntary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261860840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couple of minor points:</p><p>&gt; At the moment in the UK, subscription to the BBC is compulsory, as a condition of being able to have a TV.<br>It is a license fee, not a subscription: the money goes into the government funds, and then some (all/more/less: I am not sure) goes out to the BBC etc.</p><p>&gt; And if you watch TV without subscribing, you will be hauled before a magistrate, fined, and maybe imprisoned.<br>Actually you will be fined for *owning* the equipment, even if you never switch it on ! (which of course makes prosecution easier !!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Couple of minor points : &gt; At the moment in the UK , subscription to the BBC is compulsory , as a condition of being able to have a TV.It is a license fee , not a subscription : the money goes into the government funds , and then some ( all/more/less : I am not sure ) goes out to the BBC etc. &gt; And if you watch TV without subscribing , you will be hauled before a magistrate , fined , and maybe imprisoned.Actually you will be fined for * owning * the equipment , even if you never switch it on !
( which of course makes prosecution easier ! !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couple of minor points:&gt; At the moment in the UK, subscription to the BBC is compulsory, as a condition of being able to have a TV.It is a license fee, not a subscription: the money goes into the government funds, and then some (all/more/less: I am not sure) goes out to the BBC etc.&gt; And if you watch TV without subscribing, you will be hauled before a magistrate, fined, and maybe imprisoned.Actually you will be fined for *owning* the equipment, even if you never switch it on !
(which of course makes prosecution easier !!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30545262</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>donscarletti</author>
	<datestamp>1261679100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In American usage, companies are generally considered to be singular nouns. But the BBC is, err, I mean the bbc are British, therfore they should be considered a plural noun, as per British usage.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, the dialects are the same regarding this, and even if they weren't, you would use your own dialect here. However a company is a group of people (plural), a corporation is an individual legal entity (singular), the BBC is both. Now, companies and corporations are in the laws of both of these countries, but in the case where something is both a company and a corporation (which lets face it, is going to be quite often) in my experience it is usually referred to as "company" in the UK and "corporation" in the US. Which presumably is why pluralisation follows the same pattern.</p><p>
However in both dialects, the singular is used to draw emphasis to the corporation whereas the plural is used to draw more emphasis to the human constituents making the decisions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In American usage , companies are generally considered to be singular nouns .
But the BBC is , err , I mean the bbc are British , therfore they should be considered a plural noun , as per British usage.No , the dialects are the same regarding this , and even if they were n't , you would use your own dialect here .
However a company is a group of people ( plural ) , a corporation is an individual legal entity ( singular ) , the BBC is both .
Now , companies and corporations are in the laws of both of these countries , but in the case where something is both a company and a corporation ( which lets face it , is going to be quite often ) in my experience it is usually referred to as " company " in the UK and " corporation " in the US .
Which presumably is why pluralisation follows the same pattern .
However in both dialects , the singular is used to draw emphasis to the corporation whereas the plural is used to draw more emphasis to the human constituents making the decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In American usage, companies are generally considered to be singular nouns.
But the BBC is, err, I mean the bbc are British, therfore they should be considered a plural noun, as per British usage.No, the dialects are the same regarding this, and even if they weren't, you would use your own dialect here.
However a company is a group of people (plural), a corporation is an individual legal entity (singular), the BBC is both.
Now, companies and corporations are in the laws of both of these countries, but in the case where something is both a company and a corporation (which lets face it, is going to be quite often) in my experience it is usually referred to as "company" in the UK and "corporation" in the US.
Which presumably is why pluralisation follows the same pattern.
However in both dialects, the singular is used to draw emphasis to the corporation whereas the plural is used to draw more emphasis to the human constituents making the decisions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542944</id>
	<title>Re:The interesting question ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261656660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>100\% agree </b>. Many people have special recorders that record the subtitles and if the 'stream' becomes encrypted then these devices will stop working. The BBC should STOP chasing a pointless DRM solution and worry more about giving away their content to the world throught the BBCi player <i>(how can you protect against PROXYS?)</i>.</p><p>Many people are now offering copied Blu Ray moives so even the latest copyright methods are brocken soon after companies have spent millions trying to protect their data. People still having issues with getting home brew games so Sony are the experts at the moment.</p><p>BBC is only good for a small set of informative programs. The rest is conplete rubbish. I can't believe they require &pound;140 of my hard earn money for a licence every year. Where is the public control, given it's funded by the taxpayer? Lets have a expenses / wage review and see what disparities appear. I'm guessing a lot of them have been on a wide gravy train, getting away with all sorts using tax payers money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % agree .
Many people have special recorders that record the subtitles and if the 'stream ' becomes encrypted then these devices will stop working .
The BBC should STOP chasing a pointless DRM solution and worry more about giving away their content to the world throught the BBCi player ( how can you protect against PROXYS ?
) .Many people are now offering copied Blu Ray moives so even the latest copyright methods are brocken soon after companies have spent millions trying to protect their data .
People still having issues with getting home brew games so Sony are the experts at the moment.BBC is only good for a small set of informative programs .
The rest is conplete rubbish .
I ca n't believe they require   140 of my hard earn money for a licence every year .
Where is the public control , given it 's funded by the taxpayer ?
Lets have a expenses / wage review and see what disparities appear .
I 'm guessing a lot of them have been on a wide gravy train , getting away with all sorts using tax payers money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% agree .
Many people have special recorders that record the subtitles and if the 'stream' becomes encrypted then these devices will stop working.
The BBC should STOP chasing a pointless DRM solution and worry more about giving away their content to the world throught the BBCi player (how can you protect against PROXYS?
).Many people are now offering copied Blu Ray moives so even the latest copyright methods are brocken soon after companies have spent millions trying to protect their data.
People still having issues with getting home brew games so Sony are the experts at the moment.BBC is only good for a small set of informative programs.
The rest is conplete rubbish.
I can't believe they require £140 of my hard earn money for a licence every year.
Where is the public control, given it's funded by the taxpayer?
Lets have a expenses / wage review and see what disparities appear.
I'm guessing a lot of them have been on a wide gravy train, getting away with all sorts using tax payers money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541718</id>
	<title>The real question is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will the Doctor Who christmas special (part 1) still be on tonight?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will the Doctor Who christmas special ( part 1 ) still be on tonight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will the Doctor Who christmas special (part 1) still be on tonight?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541590</id>
	<title>Re:Why does DRM exclude open source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259772420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real cryptographers don't try to keep the intended recipient of the message from being able to access the encryption key either. The problem is that DRM is a flawed system, you can't stop the intended recipient of a message from doing what they like with your message after they receive it... in the end they will find a way to break your system, and the fact that you had to make it possible for them to decrypt it means that you can't rely on them not being able to decrypt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real cryptographers do n't try to keep the intended recipient of the message from being able to access the encryption key either .
The problem is that DRM is a flawed system , you ca n't stop the intended recipient of a message from doing what they like with your message after they receive it... in the end they will find a way to break your system , and the fact that you had to make it possible for them to decrypt it means that you ca n't rely on them not being able to decrypt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real cryptographers don't try to keep the intended recipient of the message from being able to access the encryption key either.
The problem is that DRM is a flawed system, you can't stop the intended recipient of a message from doing what they like with your message after they receive it... in the end they will find a way to break your system, and the fact that you had to make it possible for them to decrypt it means that you can't rely on them not being able to decrypt it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544332</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1261673280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to watermark something in such a way that creates millions of unique keys which can survive transcoding into a lossy compression format without affecting the picture quality is pretty difficult.  And this is even without considering that people may try and deliberately remove the watermark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to watermark something in such a way that creates millions of unique keys which can survive transcoding into a lossy compression format without affecting the picture quality is pretty difficult .
And this is even without considering that people may try and deliberately remove the watermark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to watermark something in such a way that creates millions of unique keys which can survive transcoding into a lossy compression format without affecting the picture quality is pretty difficult.
And this is even without considering that people may try and deliberately remove the watermark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541506</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>Dupple</author>
	<datestamp>1259771460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes they (the BBC) are. No they (the BBC) aren't<br><br>Yes it (the BBC) is. No it (the BBC) isn't.<br><br>English... Do you speak it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes they ( the BBC ) are .
No they ( the BBC ) aren'tYes it ( the BBC ) is .
No it ( the BBC ) is n't.English... Do you speak it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes they (the BBC) are.
No they (the BBC) aren'tYes it (the BBC) is.
No it (the BBC) isn't.English... Do you speak it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542028</id>
	<title>Re:Not Mutually Exclusive</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1259779440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM depends on proprietary software. You are encrypting a file, then giving the user the key to decode it, while telling the program in question to decode the file, but only allow it to be used in one of a few ways (eg. display PDF, but don't print).</p><p>Such a system is untenable with proprietary software (just need to find the right memory address), and absolutely impossible with open source software, as you can simply remove the line in the program that tells it what actions not to allow. (See xpdf). With proprietary DRM systems, the companies just hope it's difficult enough to decipher the compiled code of the proprietary programs, that it takes a while before someone finds the right spots in memory to probe/change, and publishes the details... Then, they make trivial changes to the DRM system, and call it a new, "fixed" version that everyone should start using quickly (before someone figures it out).</p><p>The only thing DRM can do effectively, is to prevent the first opening of the file. After you send that first key (eg. via server), no matter what the DRM involved, the user can (trivially) strip the DRM off, and do whatever they want with the unencrypted file.</p><p>If that is what you want... I would suggest using public-key encryption to protect the file instead of a commercial "DRM" system. Either PGP or SSL (keys in combination with a password) can make absolutely sure only the intended recipient can make use of the file, even if others obtain copies of it. If you are expecting any more control over what others do with the file, you are simply denying reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM depends on proprietary software .
You are encrypting a file , then giving the user the key to decode it , while telling the program in question to decode the file , but only allow it to be used in one of a few ways ( eg .
display PDF , but do n't print ) .Such a system is untenable with proprietary software ( just need to find the right memory address ) , and absolutely impossible with open source software , as you can simply remove the line in the program that tells it what actions not to allow .
( See xpdf ) .
With proprietary DRM systems , the companies just hope it 's difficult enough to decipher the compiled code of the proprietary programs , that it takes a while before someone finds the right spots in memory to probe/change , and publishes the details... Then , they make trivial changes to the DRM system , and call it a new , " fixed " version that everyone should start using quickly ( before someone figures it out ) .The only thing DRM can do effectively , is to prevent the first opening of the file .
After you send that first key ( eg .
via server ) , no matter what the DRM involved , the user can ( trivially ) strip the DRM off , and do whatever they want with the unencrypted file.If that is what you want... I would suggest using public-key encryption to protect the file instead of a commercial " DRM " system .
Either PGP or SSL ( keys in combination with a password ) can make absolutely sure only the intended recipient can make use of the file , even if others obtain copies of it .
If you are expecting any more control over what others do with the file , you are simply denying reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM depends on proprietary software.
You are encrypting a file, then giving the user the key to decode it, while telling the program in question to decode the file, but only allow it to be used in one of a few ways (eg.
display PDF, but don't print).Such a system is untenable with proprietary software (just need to find the right memory address), and absolutely impossible with open source software, as you can simply remove the line in the program that tells it what actions not to allow.
(See xpdf).
With proprietary DRM systems, the companies just hope it's difficult enough to decipher the compiled code of the proprietary programs, that it takes a while before someone finds the right spots in memory to probe/change, and publishes the details... Then, they make trivial changes to the DRM system, and call it a new, "fixed" version that everyone should start using quickly (before someone figures it out).The only thing DRM can do effectively, is to prevent the first opening of the file.
After you send that first key (eg.
via server), no matter what the DRM involved, the user can (trivially) strip the DRM off, and do whatever they want with the unencrypted file.If that is what you want... I would suggest using public-key encryption to protect the file instead of a commercial "DRM" system.
Either PGP or SSL (keys in combination with a password) can make absolutely sure only the intended recipient can make use of the file, even if others obtain copies of it.
If you are expecting any more control over what others do with the file, you are simply denying reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804</id>
	<title>make the license fee voluntary</title>
	<author>Budenny</author>
	<datestamp>1261652820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the moment in the UK, subscription to the BBC is compulsory, as a condition of being able to have a TV.  And if you watch TV without subscribing, you will be hauled before a magistrate, fined, and maybe imprisoned.  People are imprisoned all the time for doing this.</p><p>What we need to do is make it voluntary.  Everyone should be able to subscribe to the channels of their choice, or not as the case may be.  Then, when subscription to the BBC is voluntary, we can just stop arguing about it and let them do what they want.  If we don't like it, we would cancel our subscriptions.</p><p>This is so simple and obvious, its very difficult to understand why everyone doesn't support it automatically.  What possible case can there be for making subscription to one particular broadcaster compulsory, and enforced by criminal law sanctions?  Its totally nuts.  We don't make subscription to one particular newspaper a condition of being able to read the press.  We don't make subscription to one particular web site a condition of being able to have Internet Access.  What is the problem here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment in the UK , subscription to the BBC is compulsory , as a condition of being able to have a TV .
And if you watch TV without subscribing , you will be hauled before a magistrate , fined , and maybe imprisoned .
People are imprisoned all the time for doing this.What we need to do is make it voluntary .
Everyone should be able to subscribe to the channels of their choice , or not as the case may be .
Then , when subscription to the BBC is voluntary , we can just stop arguing about it and let them do what they want .
If we do n't like it , we would cancel our subscriptions.This is so simple and obvious , its very difficult to understand why everyone does n't support it automatically .
What possible case can there be for making subscription to one particular broadcaster compulsory , and enforced by criminal law sanctions ?
Its totally nuts .
We do n't make subscription to one particular newspaper a condition of being able to read the press .
We do n't make subscription to one particular web site a condition of being able to have Internet Access .
What is the problem here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment in the UK, subscription to the BBC is compulsory, as a condition of being able to have a TV.
And if you watch TV without subscribing, you will be hauled before a magistrate, fined, and maybe imprisoned.
People are imprisoned all the time for doing this.What we need to do is make it voluntary.
Everyone should be able to subscribe to the channels of their choice, or not as the case may be.
Then, when subscription to the BBC is voluntary, we can just stop arguing about it and let them do what they want.
If we don't like it, we would cancel our subscriptions.This is so simple and obvious, its very difficult to understand why everyone doesn't support it automatically.
What possible case can there be for making subscription to one particular broadcaster compulsory, and enforced by criminal law sanctions?
Its totally nuts.
We don't make subscription to one particular newspaper a condition of being able to read the press.
We don't make subscription to one particular web site a condition of being able to have Internet Access.
What is the problem here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541810</id>
	<title>Re:Not Mutually Exclusive</title>
	<author>KahabutDieDrake</author>
	<datestamp>1259776200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is why DRM is ALWAYS breakable, were as PGP isn't necessarily.  DRM is security theater at it's best.  Nothing more.<br> <br>Ultimately, DRM will accomplish nothing other than to frustrate some users, limit others and on good days, go unnoticed.  It will NEVER stop people from copying content.  It never has, and it never will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why DRM is ALWAYS breakable , were as PGP is n't necessarily .
DRM is security theater at it 's best .
Nothing more .
Ultimately , DRM will accomplish nothing other than to frustrate some users , limit others and on good days , go unnoticed .
It will NEVER stop people from copying content .
It never has , and it never will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why DRM is ALWAYS breakable, were as PGP isn't necessarily.
DRM is security theater at it's best.
Nothing more.
Ultimately, DRM will accomplish nothing other than to frustrate some users, limit others and on good days, go unnoticed.
It will NEVER stop people from copying content.
It never has, and it never will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541726</id>
	<title>this is not a bad thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is welcome news.  The less people who are able to view the British banker propaganda the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is welcome news .
The less people who are able to view the British banker propaganda the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is welcome news.
The less people who are able to view the British banker propaganda the better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543034</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1261658580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can modify the functions without having the source, it just takes a different (and rarer) skillset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can modify the functions without having the source , it just takes a different ( and rarer ) skillset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can modify the functions without having the source, it just takes a different (and rarer) skillset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542458</id>
	<title>BBC not the guilty party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261687800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is pretty unfair to the BBC. It should be made clear that the BBC probably isn't the one that's pushing for this. It's more likely that the BBC is being leant on by other content providers (like US networks) that it licences shows such as Heroes from, as well as movies it screens. It offers these on it's iPlayer service, so it's hardly surprising that it's being pressured into this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty unfair to the BBC .
It should be made clear that the BBC probably is n't the one that 's pushing for this .
It 's more likely that the BBC is being leant on by other content providers ( like US networks ) that it licences shows such as Heroes from , as well as movies it screens .
It offers these on it 's iPlayer service , so it 's hardly surprising that it 's being pressured into this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty unfair to the BBC.
It should be made clear that the BBC probably isn't the one that's pushing for this.
It's more likely that the BBC is being leant on by other content providers (like US networks) that it licences shows such as Heroes from, as well as movies it screens.
It offers these on it's iPlayer service, so it's hardly surprising that it's being pressured into this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544764</id>
	<title>The BBC isn't/aren't, corporations</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1261675920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right about the "corporation" bit. Under English law, a "corporation" is "an artificial human being" ("corp..." referring to things bodylike), so the BBC as a corporation is singular whenever we're talking about a matter of centralised policy (whenever the BBC is acting as a single entity). </p><p>However, there are many groups within the BBC in charge of different aspects of policymaking (such as the technical and standards groups), so "The BBC" can also be considered as a group, and when one of these groups does a thing, or floats an idea that can't be treated as a definitive official action by the corporation, we tend to use the plural (plurals sometimes being used to symbolise "fuzziness", to signify vagueness over who exactly it is that's being referred to). </p><p>

"The BBC" can also be plural when it refers to a group of broadcast channels.


</p><p>So for instance you might hear people saying:
</p><ul>
<li>The BBC is/are showing a new Doctor Who episode over Christmas.
("Is"="BBC as a single entity", "are" = the collective group of BBC channels)</li>
<li>BBC1 is showing the Christmas Special.</li>
<li>The BBC are also going to be showing other repeated Doctor Who material this Christmas (on multiple/unspecified channels).</li>
<li>The BBC is the rightsholder for Doctor Who.</li>
<li>The BBC has a popular website.</li>
<li>The BBC has a decent reputation for newsgathering.</li>
<li>(Elements within) the BBC are considering X.</li>
<li>The BBC has decided as a matter of (official, press-released) policy to standardise on X.</li>
</ul><p>PS: On the "corporation" bit, that's what niggled me about Asimov's "I Robot" series<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the ongoing plot element about the robot wanting to have status as a person. I don't see why they couldn't simply have had him registered as a corporation. Corporations have reponsibilities and can be deemed to have committed crimes (eg corporate manslaughter), they can own property, and they can be subjected to penalties, like people. If you want to deem a sentient robot to be an autonomous entity, then declaring them an "artificial person" seems appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right about the " corporation " bit .
Under English law , a " corporation " is " an artificial human being " ( " corp... " referring to things bodylike ) , so the BBC as a corporation is singular whenever we 're talking about a matter of centralised policy ( whenever the BBC is acting as a single entity ) .
However , there are many groups within the BBC in charge of different aspects of policymaking ( such as the technical and standards groups ) , so " The BBC " can also be considered as a group , and when one of these groups does a thing , or floats an idea that ca n't be treated as a definitive official action by the corporation , we tend to use the plural ( plurals sometimes being used to symbolise " fuzziness " , to signify vagueness over who exactly it is that 's being referred to ) .
" The BBC " can also be plural when it refers to a group of broadcast channels .
So for instance you might hear people saying : The BBC is/are showing a new Doctor Who episode over Christmas .
( " Is " = " BBC as a single entity " , " are " = the collective group of BBC channels ) BBC1 is showing the Christmas Special .
The BBC are also going to be showing other repeated Doctor Who material this Christmas ( on multiple/unspecified channels ) .
The BBC is the rightsholder for Doctor Who .
The BBC has a popular website .
The BBC has a decent reputation for newsgathering .
( Elements within ) the BBC are considering X . The BBC has decided as a matter of ( official , press-released ) policy to standardise on X . PS : On the " corporation " bit , that 's what niggled me about Asimov 's " I Robot " series ... the ongoing plot element about the robot wanting to have status as a person .
I do n't see why they could n't simply have had him registered as a corporation .
Corporations have reponsibilities and can be deemed to have committed crimes ( eg corporate manslaughter ) , they can own property , and they can be subjected to penalties , like people .
If you want to deem a sentient robot to be an autonomous entity , then declaring them an " artificial person " seems appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right about the "corporation" bit.
Under English law, a "corporation" is "an artificial human being" ("corp..." referring to things bodylike), so the BBC as a corporation is singular whenever we're talking about a matter of centralised policy (whenever the BBC is acting as a single entity).
However, there are many groups within the BBC in charge of different aspects of policymaking (such as the technical and standards groups), so "The BBC" can also be considered as a group, and when one of these groups does a thing, or floats an idea that can't be treated as a definitive official action by the corporation, we tend to use the plural (plurals sometimes being used to symbolise "fuzziness", to signify vagueness over who exactly it is that's being referred to).
"The BBC" can also be plural when it refers to a group of broadcast channels.
So for instance you might hear people saying:

The BBC is/are showing a new Doctor Who episode over Christmas.
("Is"="BBC as a single entity", "are" = the collective group of BBC channels)
BBC1 is showing the Christmas Special.
The BBC are also going to be showing other repeated Doctor Who material this Christmas (on multiple/unspecified channels).
The BBC is the rightsholder for Doctor Who.
The BBC has a popular website.
The BBC has a decent reputation for newsgathering.
(Elements within) the BBC are considering X.
The BBC has decided as a matter of (official, press-released) policy to standardise on X.
PS: On the "corporation" bit, that's what niggled me about Asimov's "I Robot" series ... the ongoing plot element about the robot wanting to have status as a person.
I don't see why they couldn't simply have had him registered as a corporation.
Corporations have reponsibilities and can be deemed to have committed crimes (eg corporate manslaughter), they can own property, and they can be subjected to penalties, like people.
If you want to deem a sentient robot to be an autonomous entity, then declaring them an "artificial person" seems appropriate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543390</id>
	<title>Re:make the license fee voluntary</title>
	<author>vivaelamor</author>
	<datestamp>1261665420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry, but that's bollocks. The maximum penalty is a fine of &pound;1000 + costs. You may go to prison for not paying the fine, but that's the same for any offence. No one has been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence.</p></div><p>This distinction matters how?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but that 's bollocks .
The maximum penalty is a fine of   1000 + costs .
You may go to prison for not paying the fine , but that 's the same for any offence .
No one has been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence.This distinction matters how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but that's bollocks.
The maximum penalty is a fine of £1000 + costs.
You may go to prison for not paying the fine, but that's the same for any offence.
No one has been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence.This distinction matters how?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543098</id>
	<title>Re:make the license fee voluntary</title>
	<author>andrewbaldwin</author>
	<datestamp>1261660080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK but also make it possible for me to have a reduction at businesses which advertise on channels I don't watch.</p><p>Why should I pay a supplement on life's essentials such as food to subsidise overpaid celebrities on adverts on channels with lowest common denominator rubbish?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK but also make it possible for me to have a reduction at businesses which advertise on channels I do n't watch.Why should I pay a supplement on life 's essentials such as food to subsidise overpaid celebrities on adverts on channels with lowest common denominator rubbish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK but also make it possible for me to have a reduction at businesses which advertise on channels I don't watch.Why should I pay a supplement on life's essentials such as food to subsidise overpaid celebrities on adverts on channels with lowest common denominator rubbish?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458</id>
	<title>Strange question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259770980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts?</i></p><p>It's simple, really.</p><p>Someone develops an Open Source DRM software solution, and the BBC uses it.</p><p>It's no different from a closed source DRM solution, except that since it is OSS, it may have a stronger encryption system since it can't rely on security through obscurity.</p><p>"Open Source" means a lot of different things to different people, but the basic concept is that it is the software which is free. How the users use the tools isn't part of the equation. So a good OSS DRM solution is a boon for some users (and a bane for their users). But either way, FOSS is not at all at odds with DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts ? It 's simple , really.Someone develops an Open Source DRM software solution , and the BBC uses it.It 's no different from a closed source DRM solution , except that since it is OSS , it may have a stronger encryption system since it ca n't rely on security through obscurity .
" Open Source " means a lot of different things to different people , but the basic concept is that it is the software which is free .
How the users use the tools is n't part of the equation .
So a good OSS DRM solution is a boon for some users ( and a bane for their users ) .
But either way , FOSS is not at all at odds with DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can free/open source software co-exist with a plan to put DRM on broadcasts?It's simple, really.Someone develops an Open Source DRM software solution, and the BBC uses it.It's no different from a closed source DRM solution, except that since it is OSS, it may have a stronger encryption system since it can't rely on security through obscurity.
"Open Source" means a lot of different things to different people, but the basic concept is that it is the software which is free.
How the users use the tools isn't part of the equation.
So a good OSS DRM solution is a boon for some users (and a bane for their users).
But either way, FOSS is not at all at odds with DRM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542138</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>billsayswow</author>
	<datestamp>1259781120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it might refer to if they're talking about the BBC as a group of people, or as an entity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it might refer to if they 're talking about the BBC as a group of people , or as an entity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it might refer to if they're talking about the BBC as a group of people, or as an entity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541612</id>
	<title>Re:Not Mutually Exclusive</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1259772600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PGP has a much easier task, though: it only needs to ensure that people with the key can decrypt content, while people without the key cannot. DRM schemes need to ensure that <i>the same person</i> can only decrypt given content for certain purposes, and not for other purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PGP has a much easier task , though : it only needs to ensure that people with the key can decrypt content , while people without the key can not .
DRM schemes need to ensure that the same person can only decrypt given content for certain purposes , and not for other purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PGP has a much easier task, though: it only needs to ensure that people with the key can decrypt content, while people without the key cannot.
DRM schemes need to ensure that the same person can only decrypt given content for certain purposes, and not for other purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544624</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1261675200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Frankly,the BBC is becoming less and less relevant, curiously more or less at a rate which is linear to its embrace of processed manufactured tripe such as Strictly Come Dancing. Perhaps the BBC and ITV could merge and produce some sort of amalgamation of X Factor and Strictly, along with a "talent" show to find the next Prince of Denmark for "Hamlet! The Musical" and play it to a studio audience all wearing false red noses.</i> <br> <br>These are probably entirely paid for through premium rate phone calls. Ironically 30 plus years ago "talent shows" had more "talent" or at least a greater variety of acts rather than the same people on week after week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly,the BBC is becoming less and less relevant , curiously more or less at a rate which is linear to its embrace of processed manufactured tripe such as Strictly Come Dancing .
Perhaps the BBC and ITV could merge and produce some sort of amalgamation of X Factor and Strictly , along with a " talent " show to find the next Prince of Denmark for " Hamlet !
The Musical " and play it to a studio audience all wearing false red noses .
These are probably entirely paid for through premium rate phone calls .
Ironically 30 plus years ago " talent shows " had more " talent " or at least a greater variety of acts rather than the same people on week after week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly,the BBC is becoming less and less relevant, curiously more or less at a rate which is linear to its embrace of processed manufactured tripe such as Strictly Come Dancing.
Perhaps the BBC and ITV could merge and produce some sort of amalgamation of X Factor and Strictly, along with a "talent" show to find the next Prince of Denmark for "Hamlet!
The Musical" and play it to a studio audience all wearing false red noses.
These are probably entirely paid for through premium rate phone calls.
Ironically 30 plus years ago "talent shows" had more "talent" or at least a greater variety of acts rather than the same people on week after week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544840</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1261676400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite simple it doesn't provide better services to the licence fee payer (not the taxpayer). See, I already paid for content from the BBC, I don't expect to have to pay for it over again once the DRM-restriction expires.</p><p>And Ofcom (the regulator) agrees. This isn't so much a non-story, as a very old non-story.</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8352241.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8352241.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p><i>BBC plans to copy protect Freeview high definition (HD) data have been dealt a blow by regulator Ofcom.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite simple it does n't provide better services to the licence fee payer ( not the taxpayer ) .
See , I already paid for content from the BBC , I do n't expect to have to pay for it over again once the DRM-restriction expires.And Ofcom ( the regulator ) agrees .
This is n't so much a non-story , as a very old non-story.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8352241.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] BBC plans to copy protect Freeview high definition ( HD ) data have been dealt a blow by regulator Ofcom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite simple it doesn't provide better services to the licence fee payer (not the taxpayer).
See, I already paid for content from the BBC, I don't expect to have to pay for it over again once the DRM-restriction expires.And Ofcom (the regulator) agrees.
This isn't so much a non-story, as a very old non-story.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8352241.stm [bbc.co.uk]BBC plans to copy protect Freeview high definition (HD) data have been dealt a blow by regulator Ofcom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542442</id>
	<title>Re:Double Check Your Premise &amp; Concentrate on</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1261687500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Where is it written that the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts? Is that a law I'm unaware of?</i></p><p>Exactly. TV broadcasts are legally required to be in the clear in the US as well. Public broadcasting licenses require the broadcasts to actually be public. For example you can broadcasts personal chat on CB frequencies, but a TV station cannot use its frequencies to transmit the station owner's chat to his buddies.</p><p>That is why the TV and movie studios have been pushing in the US for a "broadcasts flag"... un-encrypted video and audio along with a bit that says "don't copy me", and they want the FCC to impose an administrative regulation mandating that all digital TV receivers must implement DRM systems to obey that "do not copy" message.</p><p>They'd much rather get some an FCC administrative regulation than try to stand up in public before congress asking for a law to do that. There's already a law giving the FCC fairly general authority to administratively regulate transmitting equipment. Unfortunately for them (snicker), a court has already ruled that regulations on <i>receiving equipment</i> do not fall within the existing law giving the FCC power to regulate transmissions. Awwww, that's such a shame.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is it written that the BBC is n't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts ?
Is that a law I 'm unaware of ? Exactly .
TV broadcasts are legally required to be in the clear in the US as well .
Public broadcasting licenses require the broadcasts to actually be public .
For example you can broadcasts personal chat on CB frequencies , but a TV station can not use its frequencies to transmit the station owner 's chat to his buddies.That is why the TV and movie studios have been pushing in the US for a " broadcasts flag " ... un-encrypted video and audio along with a bit that says " do n't copy me " , and they want the FCC to impose an administrative regulation mandating that all digital TV receivers must implement DRM systems to obey that " do not copy " message.They 'd much rather get some an FCC administrative regulation than try to stand up in public before congress asking for a law to do that .
There 's already a law giving the FCC fairly general authority to administratively regulate transmitting equipment .
Unfortunately for them ( snicker ) , a court has already ruled that regulations on receiving equipment do not fall within the existing law giving the FCC power to regulate transmissions .
Awwww , that 's such a shame.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is it written that the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts?
Is that a law I'm unaware of?Exactly.
TV broadcasts are legally required to be in the clear in the US as well.
Public broadcasting licenses require the broadcasts to actually be public.
For example you can broadcasts personal chat on CB frequencies, but a TV station cannot use its frequencies to transmit the station owner's chat to his buddies.That is why the TV and movie studios have been pushing in the US for a "broadcasts flag"... un-encrypted video and audio along with a bit that says "don't copy me", and they want the FCC to impose an administrative regulation mandating that all digital TV receivers must implement DRM systems to obey that "do not copy" message.They'd much rather get some an FCC administrative regulation than try to stand up in public before congress asking for a law to do that.
There's already a law giving the FCC fairly general authority to administratively regulate transmitting equipment.
Unfortunately for them (snicker), a court has already ruled that regulations on receiving equipment do not fall within the existing law giving the FCC power to regulate transmissions.
Awwww, that's such a shame.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541546</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259772000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can read the source code of a program, the function can be modified and thus a hypothetical open source DRM program could be engineered to decode the media wtihout implementing DRM's limitations.  Which is much of why DRM is so disgusting.  Not only does it severely limit what someone can do with their legally bought media, it also must be proprietary in order to hide the key from the user themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can read the source code of a program , the function can be modified and thus a hypothetical open source DRM program could be engineered to decode the media wtihout implementing DRM 's limitations .
Which is much of why DRM is so disgusting .
Not only does it severely limit what someone can do with their legally bought media , it also must be proprietary in order to hide the key from the user themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can read the source code of a program, the function can be modified and thus a hypothetical open source DRM program could be engineered to decode the media wtihout implementing DRM's limitations.
Which is much of why DRM is so disgusting.
Not only does it severely limit what someone can do with their legally bought media, it also must be proprietary in order to hide the key from the user themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543762</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261669320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Kudos, Tiger Aspect, Hat Trick, etc, say they need DRM if content is to be broadcast in better-than-DVD quality, that matters.</p></div><p>Who?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Kudos , Tiger Aspect , Hat Trick , etc , say they need DRM if content is to be broadcast in better-than-DVD quality , that matters.Who ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Kudos, Tiger Aspect, Hat Trick, etc, say they need DRM if content is to be broadcast in better-than-DVD quality, that matters.Who?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541700</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you quite understand. The only thing DRM has is security by obscurity. When you freely hand out both the ciphertext *and* the key to whoever asks, you can't have anything else. And if it's open source, you don't get even that. So no, you're not going to see any open source DRM systems any time soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you quite understand .
The only thing DRM has is security by obscurity .
When you freely hand out both the ciphertext * and * the key to whoever asks , you ca n't have anything else .
And if it 's open source , you do n't get even that .
So no , you 're not going to see any open source DRM systems any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you quite understand.
The only thing DRM has is security by obscurity.
When you freely hand out both the ciphertext *and* the key to whoever asks, you can't have anything else.
And if it's open source, you don't get even that.
So no, you're not going to see any open source DRM systems any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541714</id>
	<title>If BBC is boring, ENCRYPTED BBC = ??</title>
	<author>purpleraison</author>
	<datestamp>1259774220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BBC is crap, how dare they encrypt it!!</p><p>This is the same as crapping in a bank vault. The only person who wants that steaming pile of poo is either insane, or thinks its something it's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC is crap , how dare they encrypt it !
! This is the same as crapping in a bank vault .
The only person who wants that steaming pile of poo is either insane , or thinks its something it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC is crap, how dare they encrypt it!
!This is the same as crapping in a bank vault.
The only person who wants that steaming pile of poo is either insane, or thinks its something it's not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542244</id>
	<title>Re:Double Check Your Premise &amp; Concentrate on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259782800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fucking Tory. Die in a fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking Tory .
Die in a fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking Tory.
Die in a fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543608</id>
	<title>Re:Double Check Your Premise &amp; Concentrate on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261668060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Where is it written that the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts? Is that a law I'm unaware of?</i></p><p>Because the BBC's mandate is to provide their programming to everyone in the country for free, not provide TV for other markets (regardless of how much money they would probably make). The whole issue is locking the online content, which is utter pointless seeing as the same programming is transmitted digitally OTA and through cable, and will be recorded and distributed by cappers, just like now. The BBC cannot put exclusive content online and not broadcast it. This is the unique nature of the BBC, they are not like any other broadcasting company, and people keep forgetting it. The other channels are free to do as they please.</p><p>If the BBC wants to move away from that model, they need to lose the huge funds from the license fees and learn to stand on their own feet. That'll never happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is it written that the BBC is n't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts ?
Is that a law I 'm unaware of ? Because the BBC 's mandate is to provide their programming to everyone in the country for free , not provide TV for other markets ( regardless of how much money they would probably make ) .
The whole issue is locking the online content , which is utter pointless seeing as the same programming is transmitted digitally OTA and through cable , and will be recorded and distributed by cappers , just like now .
The BBC can not put exclusive content online and not broadcast it .
This is the unique nature of the BBC , they are not like any other broadcasting company , and people keep forgetting it .
The other channels are free to do as they please.If the BBC wants to move away from that model , they need to lose the huge funds from the license fees and learn to stand on their own feet .
That 'll never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is it written that the BBC isn't allowed to encrypt or restrict its broadcasts?
Is that a law I'm unaware of?Because the BBC's mandate is to provide their programming to everyone in the country for free, not provide TV for other markets (regardless of how much money they would probably make).
The whole issue is locking the online content, which is utter pointless seeing as the same programming is transmitted digitally OTA and through cable, and will be recorded and distributed by cappers, just like now.
The BBC cannot put exclusive content online and not broadcast it.
This is the unique nature of the BBC, they are not like any other broadcasting company, and people keep forgetting it.
The other channels are free to do as they please.If the BBC wants to move away from that model, they need to lose the huge funds from the license fees and learn to stand on their own feet.
That'll never happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543466</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1261666320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could that mean the BBC would not get swamped with shallow sitcoms and pointless shows?</p><p>How do I press against using DRM in the BBC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could that mean the BBC would not get swamped with shallow sitcoms and pointless shows ? How do I press against using DRM in the BBC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could that mean the BBC would not get swamped with shallow sitcoms and pointless shows?How do I press against using DRM in the BBC?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542762</id>
	<title>The BBC needs to act within EU Law</title>
	<author>falconcy</author>
	<datestamp>1261652040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think all of this is merely a smokescreen to delay the inevitable. A few days ago the deadline for the EU's "Broadcasting sans Frontiers" law to come into force passed by. The implications of this were that the technologies such as IPTV which actually allow users outside the physical borders of the country in question to receive TV broadcasts online could no longer be blocked within the EU. In simple language, the BBC iPlayer is now supposed to work anywhere in the EU and for the BBC to prevent users outside the UK from using it is now against EU Law. I wonder if this would actually legitimise getting TV programs via P2P as that is actually enabling the EU Law rather than preventing it.

That said, a glance at the UK TV schedules for the coming days shows that we're not really missing anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think all of this is merely a smokescreen to delay the inevitable .
A few days ago the deadline for the EU 's " Broadcasting sans Frontiers " law to come into force passed by .
The implications of this were that the technologies such as IPTV which actually allow users outside the physical borders of the country in question to receive TV broadcasts online could no longer be blocked within the EU .
In simple language , the BBC iPlayer is now supposed to work anywhere in the EU and for the BBC to prevent users outside the UK from using it is now against EU Law .
I wonder if this would actually legitimise getting TV programs via P2P as that is actually enabling the EU Law rather than preventing it .
That said , a glance at the UK TV schedules for the coming days shows that we 're not really missing anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think all of this is merely a smokescreen to delay the inevitable.
A few days ago the deadline for the EU's "Broadcasting sans Frontiers" law to come into force passed by.
The implications of this were that the technologies such as IPTV which actually allow users outside the physical borders of the country in question to receive TV broadcasts online could no longer be blocked within the EU.
In simple language, the BBC iPlayer is now supposed to work anywhere in the EU and for the BBC to prevent users outside the UK from using it is now against EU Law.
I wonder if this would actually legitimise getting TV programs via P2P as that is actually enabling the EU Law rather than preventing it.
That said, a glance at the UK TV schedules for the coming days shows that we're not really missing anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542684</id>
	<title>It's the wrong question..</title>
	<author>datajack</author>
	<datestamp>1261650600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't that the BBC is planning to 'block open source', it is that the BBC is planning to block open access. It's a subtle but important difference.</p><p>The BBC is different from almost any other company, it is a bizarre mash-up of private and public sector and as such it's primary concern is not profit but value to British citizens.</p><p>The first question that should be asked (and the one I think OFCOM asked the first time around) is 'how does this benefit the British consumer?'. It is quite clear that the encryption does not bring any benefit over not encrypting it to the average British consumer. In fact the opposite is true as there are then artificial restrictions and limits on the equipment that people can buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't that the BBC is planning to 'block open source ' , it is that the BBC is planning to block open access .
It 's a subtle but important difference.The BBC is different from almost any other company , it is a bizarre mash-up of private and public sector and as such it 's primary concern is not profit but value to British citizens.The first question that should be asked ( and the one I think OFCOM asked the first time around ) is 'how does this benefit the British consumer ? ' .
It is quite clear that the encryption does not bring any benefit over not encrypting it to the average British consumer .
In fact the opposite is true as there are then artificial restrictions and limits on the equipment that people can buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't that the BBC is planning to 'block open source', it is that the BBC is planning to block open access.
It's a subtle but important difference.The BBC is different from almost any other company, it is a bizarre mash-up of private and public sector and as such it's primary concern is not profit but value to British citizens.The first question that should be asked (and the one I think OFCOM asked the first time around) is 'how does this benefit the British consumer?'.
It is quite clear that the encryption does not bring any benefit over not encrypting it to the average British consumer.
In fact the opposite is true as there are then artificial restrictions and limits on the equipment that people can buy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543892</id>
	<title>Re:BBC not the guilty party</title>
	<author>kegon</author>
	<datestamp>1261670160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's more likely that the BBC is being leant on by other content providers (like US networks) that it licences shows such as Heroes from, as well as movies it screens.</p></div></blockquote><p>Have you ever actually tried to use this "iplayer" that you talk about ? I suggest you take a look at it: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">iplayer</a> [bbc.co.uk].</p><p>There are very few, if any, licensed shows from other networks. There are very few movies from other networks or other countries. In fact it only lists 7 movies, ever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more likely that the BBC is being leant on by other content providers ( like US networks ) that it licences shows such as Heroes from , as well as movies it screens.Have you ever actually tried to use this " iplayer " that you talk about ?
I suggest you take a look at it : iplayer [ bbc.co.uk ] .There are very few , if any , licensed shows from other networks .
There are very few movies from other networks or other countries .
In fact it only lists 7 movies , ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more likely that the BBC is being leant on by other content providers (like US networks) that it licences shows such as Heroes from, as well as movies it screens.Have you ever actually tried to use this "iplayer" that you talk about ?
I suggest you take a look at it: iplayer [bbc.co.uk].There are very few, if any, licensed shows from other networks.
There are very few movies from other networks or other countries.
In fact it only lists 7 movies, ever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543096</id>
	<title>Re:make the license fee voluntary</title>
	<author>mr\_jrt</author>
	<datestamp>1261660020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the idea is that, much as with the NHS, it relies on economies of scale for funding. Much as you can't really opt-out of National Insurance contributions (as the rich who contribute the most are those most able to afford private healthcare - making the system unaffordable), the BBC provides so many high-quality public services, that it would be cut back so drastically by those who would just opt for things like The Murdoch network...I mean Sky<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) Other broadcasters would have to be so over regulated to provide the same level of impartial service as the BBC that you're probably better off with the current system. Really, it isn't that much to pay for the best broadcaster in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the idea is that , much as with the NHS , it relies on economies of scale for funding .
Much as you ca n't really opt-out of National Insurance contributions ( as the rich who contribute the most are those most able to afford private healthcare - making the system unaffordable ) , the BBC provides so many high-quality public services , that it would be cut back so drastically by those who would just opt for things like The Murdoch network...I mean Sky ; ) Other broadcasters would have to be so over regulated to provide the same level of impartial service as the BBC that you 're probably better off with the current system .
Really , it is n't that much to pay for the best broadcaster in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the idea is that, much as with the NHS, it relies on economies of scale for funding.
Much as you can't really opt-out of National Insurance contributions (as the rich who contribute the most are those most able to afford private healthcare - making the system unaffordable), the BBC provides so many high-quality public services, that it would be cut back so drastically by those who would just opt for things like The Murdoch network...I mean Sky ;) Other broadcasters would have to be so over regulated to provide the same level of impartial service as the BBC that you're probably better off with the current system.
Really, it isn't that much to pay for the best broadcaster in the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30572778</id>
	<title>Re:make the license fee voluntary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262023860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually you are allowed to own the equipment as long as it is detuned and not connected to an aerial.  You can check with TV Licensing if you don't believe me (and why should you since I'm just an AC), even their website has the simple statement on it, "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.", so it is all about watching broadcasts via whatever medium and nothing about what equipment you own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually you are allowed to own the equipment as long as it is detuned and not connected to an aerial .
You can check with TV Licensing if you do n't believe me ( and why should you since I 'm just an AC ) , even their website has the simple statement on it , " You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it 's being broadcast .
This includes the use of devices such as a computer , laptop , mobile phone or DVD/video recorder .
" , so it is all about watching broadcasts via whatever medium and nothing about what equipment you own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually you are allowed to own the equipment as long as it is detuned and not connected to an aerial.
You can check with TV Licensing if you don't believe me (and why should you since I'm just an AC), even their website has the simple statement on it, "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.
This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
", so it is all about watching broadcasts via whatever medium and nothing about what equipment you own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30557820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542990</id>
	<title>Re:make the license fee voluntary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261657800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support it alright, but I'm pretty sure they'd want it both ways with encryption and a mandatory licence. As it stands if you don't own a TV and exercise your right not to pay for a licence you receive an endless stream of threatening letters which would have you believe that it's a criminal act to not have a licence regardless.</p><p>DRM and a per-box licence would allow people to opt out of paying for what they don't want and I reckon the BBC know how much cash they stand to lose from this if people just pay for what they want and rightfully receive it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support it alright , but I 'm pretty sure they 'd want it both ways with encryption and a mandatory licence .
As it stands if you do n't own a TV and exercise your right not to pay for a licence you receive an endless stream of threatening letters which would have you believe that it 's a criminal act to not have a licence regardless.DRM and a per-box licence would allow people to opt out of paying for what they do n't want and I reckon the BBC know how much cash they stand to lose from this if people just pay for what they want and rightfully receive it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support it alright, but I'm pretty sure they'd want it both ways with encryption and a mandatory licence.
As it stands if you don't own a TV and exercise your right not to pay for a licence you receive an endless stream of threatening letters which would have you believe that it's a criminal act to not have a licence regardless.DRM and a per-box licence would allow people to opt out of paying for what they don't want and I reckon the BBC know how much cash they stand to lose from this if people just pay for what they want and rightfully receive it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542936</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1261656480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One could argue that people who do NOT pay won't be able to see it and this MIGHT entice people to start paying who are not paying now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One could argue that people who do NOT pay wo n't be able to see it and this MIGHT entice people to start paying who are not paying now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One could argue that people who do NOT pay won't be able to see it and this MIGHT entice people to start paying who are not paying now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543288</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC aren't</title>
	<author>Alphathon</author>
	<datestamp>1261664040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If that is the American usage that that is what should be used in American english (not that I accept that such a language exists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P. It is nothing but local dialect as far as I'm concerned). Names stay the same regardless of language and aren't translated (like if you are called Paul and move to Portugal, you are still Paul, not Paulo), but the sentence surrounding them does not. As Anonymous Coward said it depends on the context. If you are refering to the collection of people, it is plural. If you are talking about the company itself as an entity, rather than a group of people, it is singular. The difference is that we brits tend to think of the Beeb (or any other company) as the group of employees, not as an entity in its own right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that is the American usage that that is what should be used in American english ( not that I accept that such a language exists : P. It is nothing but local dialect as far as I 'm concerned ) .
Names stay the same regardless of language and are n't translated ( like if you are called Paul and move to Portugal , you are still Paul , not Paulo ) , but the sentence surrounding them does not .
As Anonymous Coward said it depends on the context .
If you are refering to the collection of people , it is plural .
If you are talking about the company itself as an entity , rather than a group of people , it is singular .
The difference is that we brits tend to think of the Beeb ( or any other company ) as the group of employees , not as an entity in its own right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that is the American usage that that is what should be used in American english (not that I accept that such a language exists :P. It is nothing but local dialect as far as I'm concerned).
Names stay the same regardless of language and aren't translated (like if you are called Paul and move to Portugal, you are still Paul, not Paulo), but the sentence surrounding them does not.
As Anonymous Coward said it depends on the context.
If you are refering to the collection of people, it is plural.
If you are talking about the company itself as an entity, rather than a group of people, it is singular.
The difference is that we brits tend to think of the Beeb (or any other company) as the group of employees, not as an entity in its own right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30548050</id>
	<title>Re:make the license fee voluntary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261659300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s an interesting argument but where does one draw the line. Should people be allowed to opt out of NHS treatment, or the protection of law enforcement? The government who, has been democratically elected to represent UK citizens has decided that the BBC is to be a fun dental part of society, by serving as a service that the vast majority of the population is will benefit from and as such tax to fund it is collected accordingly, not unlike any other public service. In other words its been decided it hat comes part and parcel with the rest of UK civil society. Like it or lump it.</p><p>k</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s an interesting argument but where does one draw the line .
Should people be allowed to opt out of NHS treatment , or the protection of law enforcement ?
The government who , has been democratically elected to represent UK citizens has decided that the BBC is to be a fun dental part of society , by serving as a service that the vast majority of the population is will benefit from and as such tax to fund it is collected accordingly , not unlike any other public service .
In other words its been decided it hat comes part and parcel with the rest of UK civil society .
Like it or lump it.k</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s an interesting argument but where does one draw the line.
Should people be allowed to opt out of NHS treatment, or the protection of law enforcement?
The government who, has been democratically elected to represent UK citizens has decided that the BBC is to be a fun dental part of society, by serving as a service that the vast majority of the population is will benefit from and as such tax to fund it is collected accordingly, not unlike any other public service.
In other words its been decided it hat comes part and parcel with the rest of UK civil society.
Like it or lump it.k</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542980</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261657560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As explained above, you can't have a DRM system in which everything (i.e. algorithms and keys) is freely available.  But you can have an open source DRM system if it runs on special hardware and the keys are kept in the hardware.</p><p>So, for example, you could have a hardware platform for which anyone can receive the software sources and load there own code on to. This hardware platform would contain embedded keys which would be used to decrypt the content.  Theoretically, the hardware platform could even limit the usage of the decrypted content; e.g. it may allow decrypted content to be used by the hardware platform itself but not to be output to other devices.  For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure\_Video\_Processor.</p><p>DWF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As explained above , you ca n't have a DRM system in which everything ( i.e .
algorithms and keys ) is freely available .
But you can have an open source DRM system if it runs on special hardware and the keys are kept in the hardware.So , for example , you could have a hardware platform for which anyone can receive the software sources and load there own code on to .
This hardware platform would contain embedded keys which would be used to decrypt the content .
Theoretically , the hardware platform could even limit the usage of the decrypted content ; e.g .
it may allow decrypted content to be used by the hardware platform itself but not to be output to other devices .
For example , see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure \ _Video \ _Processor.DWF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As explained above, you can't have a DRM system in which everything (i.e.
algorithms and keys) is freely available.
But you can have an open source DRM system if it runs on special hardware and the keys are kept in the hardware.So, for example, you could have a hardware platform for which anyone can receive the software sources and load there own code on to.
This hardware platform would contain embedded keys which would be used to decrypt the content.
Theoretically, the hardware platform could even limit the usage of the decrypted content; e.g.
it may allow decrypted content to be used by the hardware platform itself but not to be output to other devices.
For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure\_Video\_Processor.DWF</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542902</id>
	<title>Re:Double Check Your Premise &amp; Concentrate on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261655400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The domestic BBC is not paid for by taxes, it is paid for by licenses to watch TV.</p><p>Also I wonder why you think one of the best broadcasters in the world with the best factual, news, documentary and wildlife programming suck and are nothing but evil? Having watched the kind of dross you get in the US and even in a lot of Europe I know that I simply wouldn't bother having a TV if it weren't for companies like the BBC. Even if they weren't very good, at least they aren't bombarding you with adverts every 10 minutes. (Oh sure you can skip adverts but if everyone did then that TV model would soon break down).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The domestic BBC is not paid for by taxes , it is paid for by licenses to watch TV.Also I wonder why you think one of the best broadcasters in the world with the best factual , news , documentary and wildlife programming suck and are nothing but evil ?
Having watched the kind of dross you get in the US and even in a lot of Europe I know that I simply would n't bother having a TV if it were n't for companies like the BBC .
Even if they were n't very good , at least they are n't bombarding you with adverts every 10 minutes .
( Oh sure you can skip adverts but if everyone did then that TV model would soon break down ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The domestic BBC is not paid for by taxes, it is paid for by licenses to watch TV.Also I wonder why you think one of the best broadcasters in the world with the best factual, news, documentary and wildlife programming suck and are nothing but evil?
Having watched the kind of dross you get in the US and even in a lot of Europe I know that I simply wouldn't bother having a TV if it weren't for companies like the BBC.
Even if they weren't very good, at least they aren't bombarding you with adverts every 10 minutes.
(Oh sure you can skip adverts but if everyone did then that TV model would soon break down).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543208</id>
	<title>Re:Vastly more important question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261662360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly,the BBC is becoming less and less relevant, curiously more or less at a rate which is linear to its embrace of processed manufactured tripe such as Strictly Come Dancing. Perhaps the BBC and ITV could merge and produce some sort of amalgamation of X Factor and Strictly, along with a "talent" show to find the next Prince of Denmark for "Hamlet! The Musical" and play it to a studio audience all wearing false red noses. To make it more interesting they could get  Anne Robinson and Simon Cowell to compere it together, competing for the most sarcastic remark aimed at wannabes with an average IQ of 5.</p><p>They can encrypt and DRM that to their heart's content. Personally, I'll be down the pub spending the money I would have spent on a licence fee for proper programmes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly,the BBC is becoming less and less relevant , curiously more or less at a rate which is linear to its embrace of processed manufactured tripe such as Strictly Come Dancing .
Perhaps the BBC and ITV could merge and produce some sort of amalgamation of X Factor and Strictly , along with a " talent " show to find the next Prince of Denmark for " Hamlet !
The Musical " and play it to a studio audience all wearing false red noses .
To make it more interesting they could get Anne Robinson and Simon Cowell to compere it together , competing for the most sarcastic remark aimed at wannabes with an average IQ of 5.They can encrypt and DRM that to their heart 's content .
Personally , I 'll be down the pub spending the money I would have spent on a licence fee for proper programmes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly,the BBC is becoming less and less relevant, curiously more or less at a rate which is linear to its embrace of processed manufactured tripe such as Strictly Come Dancing.
Perhaps the BBC and ITV could merge and produce some sort of amalgamation of X Factor and Strictly, along with a "talent" show to find the next Prince of Denmark for "Hamlet!
The Musical" and play it to a studio audience all wearing false red noses.
To make it more interesting they could get  Anne Robinson and Simon Cowell to compere it together, competing for the most sarcastic remark aimed at wannabes with an average IQ of 5.They can encrypt and DRM that to their heart's content.
Personally, I'll be down the pub spending the money I would have spent on a licence fee for proper programmes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30545564</id>
	<title>Re:Why does DRM exclude open source?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1261681200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Real cryptographers don't trust closed source</i> </p><p>How can you be sure of that?</p><p>How can you know what is in use but undisclosed within the military and other agencies and organizations world-wide?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real cryptographers do n't trust closed source How can you be sure of that ? How can you know what is in use but undisclosed within the military and other agencies and organizations world-wide ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real cryptographers don't trust closed source How can you be sure of that?How can you know what is in use but undisclosed within the military and other agencies and organizations world-wide?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541520</id>
	<title>Not Mutually Exclusive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM does not depend on a particular programming paradigm, nor does Open Source. PGP is a great example of open source security which remains secure. The challenge really lies in the implementor, who needs to enforce security while not falling back on closed-cource obfuscation to achieve the task.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM does not depend on a particular programming paradigm , nor does Open Source .
PGP is a great example of open source security which remains secure .
The challenge really lies in the implementor , who needs to enforce security while not falling back on closed-cource obfuscation to achieve the task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM does not depend on a particular programming paradigm, nor does Open Source.
PGP is a great example of open source security which remains secure.
The challenge really lies in the implementor, who needs to enforce security while not falling back on closed-cource obfuscation to achieve the task.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544350</id>
	<title>Re:Strange question</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1261673400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In order to play the movie, you need the key. In order to copy the movie, you need the key.</i> <br> <br>You may not need the key to copy though. A copy of the cypher text or some binary blob which is cyphertext, key and crypto machine mixed together may well be perfectly functional. It may even by cost effective to bribe someone to produce extra copies wherever "legitimate media" are being produced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to play the movie , you need the key .
In order to copy the movie , you need the key .
You may not need the key to copy though .
A copy of the cypher text or some binary blob which is cyphertext , key and crypto machine mixed together may well be perfectly functional .
It may even by cost effective to bribe someone to produce extra copies wherever " legitimate media " are being produced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to play the movie, you need the key.
In order to copy the movie, you need the key.
You may not need the key to copy though.
A copy of the cypher text or some binary blob which is cyphertext, key and crypto machine mixed together may well be perfectly functional.
It may even by cost effective to bribe someone to produce extra copies wherever "legitimate media" are being produced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541510</id>
	<title>Dirac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, the BBC would like to collaborate with the Open Source community, academics and others to produce an <b> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/overview.shtml" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Open Codec</a> [bbc.co.uk] </b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the BBC would like to collaborate with the Open Source community , academics and others to produce an Open Codec [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, the BBC would like to collaborate with the Open Source community, academics and others to produce an  Open Codec [bbc.co.uk] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30572778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30557820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30545262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30548050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30545564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30567298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2342207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30545372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30545564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30545372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30567298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30545262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30544002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30541480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2342207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30557820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30572778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30548050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30542998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2342207.30543096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
