<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_15_208219</id>
	<title>Adding Up the Explanations For ACTA's "Shameful Secret"</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263551100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Several sources are reporting on a Google event this week that attempted to <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/actas-shameful-secret.ars">bring some transparency to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement</a> (ACTA) that has so far been treated like a "shameful secret."  Unfortunately, not many concrete details were uncovered, so Ars tried to lay out why there has been so much secrecy, especially from an administration that has been preaching transparency.  <i>"The reason for that was obvious: there's little of substance that's known about the treaty, and those lawyers in the room and on the panel who had seen one small part of it were under a nondisclosure agreement.  In most contexts, the lack of any hard information might lead to a discussion of mind-numbing generality and irrelevance, but this transparency talk was quite fascinating&mdash;in large part because one of the most influential copyright lobbyists in Washington was on the panel attempting to make his case.  [...] [MPAA/RIAA Champion Steven] Metalitz took on three other panelists and a moderator, all of whom were less than sympathetic to his positions, and he made the lengthiest case for both ACTA and its secrecy that we have ever heard. It was also surprisingly unconvincing."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several sources are reporting on a Google event this week that attempted to bring some transparency to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ( ACTA ) that has so far been treated like a " shameful secret .
" Unfortunately , not many concrete details were uncovered , so Ars tried to lay out why there has been so much secrecy , especially from an administration that has been preaching transparency .
" The reason for that was obvious : there 's little of substance that 's known about the treaty , and those lawyers in the room and on the panel who had seen one small part of it were under a nondisclosure agreement .
In most contexts , the lack of any hard information might lead to a discussion of mind-numbing generality and irrelevance , but this transparency talk was quite fascinating    in large part because one of the most influential copyright lobbyists in Washington was on the panel attempting to make his case .
[ ... ] [ MPAA/RIAA Champion Steven ] Metalitz took on three other panelists and a moderator , all of whom were less than sympathetic to his positions , and he made the lengthiest case for both ACTA and its secrecy that we have ever heard .
It was also surprisingly unconvincing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several sources are reporting on a Google event this week that attempted to bring some transparency to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that has so far been treated like a "shameful secret.
"  Unfortunately, not many concrete details were uncovered, so Ars tried to lay out why there has been so much secrecy, especially from an administration that has been preaching transparency.
"The reason for that was obvious: there's little of substance that's known about the treaty, and those lawyers in the room and on the panel who had seen one small part of it were under a nondisclosure agreement.
In most contexts, the lack of any hard information might lead to a discussion of mind-numbing generality and irrelevance, but this transparency talk was quite fascinating—in large part because one of the most influential copyright lobbyists in Washington was on the panel attempting to make his case.
[...] [MPAA/RIAA Champion Steven] Metalitz took on three other panelists and a moderator, all of whom were less than sympathetic to his positions, and he made the lengthiest case for both ACTA and its secrecy that we have ever heard.
It was also surprisingly unconvincing.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785632</id>
	<title>Re:Like healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263558480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 Sarcastic</p><p>??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Sarcastic ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Sarcastic?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785414</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1263557400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every frikkin page of Questionable Content and Girl Genius is on the web.</p><p>The QC recently bought a house, travels to conventions, and has a pretty damn good life.  People buy tons of merchandise which they could make free themselves for a couple bucks less!</p><p>Phil and Kaja seem to be doing okay as well.  (For some reason people keep buying the damn books which they could get perfectly free from the Foglio's web site).</p><p>Why do these seemingly intelligent people keep giving their work away for free???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every frikkin page of Questionable Content and Girl Genius is on the web.The QC recently bought a house , travels to conventions , and has a pretty damn good life .
People buy tons of merchandise which they could make free themselves for a couple bucks less ! Phil and Kaja seem to be doing okay as well .
( For some reason people keep buying the damn books which they could get perfectly free from the Foglio 's web site ) .Why do these seemingly intelligent people keep giving their work away for free ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every frikkin page of Questionable Content and Girl Genius is on the web.The QC recently bought a house, travels to conventions, and has a pretty damn good life.
People buy tons of merchandise which they could make free themselves for a couple bucks less!Phil and Kaja seem to be doing okay as well.
(For some reason people keep buying the damn books which they could get perfectly free from the Foglio's web site).Why do these seemingly intelligent people keep giving their work away for free??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30791820</id>
	<title>Re:The most disturbing point</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1263669240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The most disturbing point in this article, for me, is that the US may be the sticking point on allowing the discussions to be more transparent</p></div><p>I just took that for granted. Thanks for the link.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most disturbing point in this article , for me , is that the US may be the sticking point on allowing the discussions to be more transparentI just took that for granted .
Thanks for the link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most disturbing point in this article, for me, is that the US may be the sticking point on allowing the discussions to be more transparentI just took that for granted.
Thanks for the link.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786014</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1263561060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I resent the implication that American Beer tastes like warm piss! Everybody knows that we Americans prefer our beer chilled, so in fact it always tastes like \_cold\_ piss!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I resent the implication that American Beer tastes like warm piss !
Everybody knows that we Americans prefer our beer chilled , so in fact it always tastes like \ _cold \ _ piss !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I resent the implication that American Beer tastes like warm piss!
Everybody knows that we Americans prefer our beer chilled, so in fact it always tastes like \_cold\_ piss!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786004</id>
	<title>Re:Industry lobbyists hint at the truth of ACTA?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263560940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.</p></div><p>They might if they weren't too busy making the rent, finding a job, and worrying about how they are going to pay for it all when they get sick. This doesn't make secrecy a good thing for treaty negotiations, but I doubt that there would be much public outcry, even if they did know; sad though it may be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people knew what was really going on , talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.They might if they were n't too busy making the rent , finding a job , and worrying about how they are going to pay for it all when they get sick .
This does n't make secrecy a good thing for treaty negotiations , but I doubt that there would be much public outcry , even if they did know ; sad though it may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.They might if they weren't too busy making the rent, finding a job, and worrying about how they are going to pay for it all when they get sick.
This doesn't make secrecy a good thing for treaty negotiations, but I doubt that there would be much public outcry, even if they did know; sad though it may be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785494</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1263557760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I own a few books that are published for free on the internet already. Hell, I found some of them because they were published for free on the internet by the original author.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I own a few books that are published for free on the internet already .
Hell , I found some of them because they were published for free on the internet by the original author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own a few books that are published for free on the internet already.
Hell, I found some of them because they were published for free on the internet by the original author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30790334</id>
	<title>Re: Avoid Snake Bites</title>
	<author>Shatteredstar</author>
	<datestamp>1263657840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't we go through this mess way back when cassette tape recorders came out?

Its the same sort of issue and the same companies throwing the same fits.

They just dislike technology that gives control of content to people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we go through this mess way back when cassette tape recorders came out ?
Its the same sort of issue and the same companies throwing the same fits .
They just dislike technology that gives control of content to people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we go through this mess way back when cassette tape recorders came out?
Its the same sort of issue and the same companies throwing the same fits.
They just dislike technology that gives control of content to people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785728</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Chosen Reject</author>
	<datestamp>1263559020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can create something that a lot of people want and yet can't figure out a way to get people to pay you money then hire someone who can come up with a decent business model for you.  If you can't do it, and no one else can do it, then whatever you created wasn't going to net you any money whether piracy is rampant or not.  Lots of people are finding ways to make money with music, movies, books, and other copyrightable things despite their works being freely available.  In fact, many of them are also making money while encouraging the copying of their stuff.  It can be done.  It is being done.  And those who can't do it will not last long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can create something that a lot of people want and yet ca n't figure out a way to get people to pay you money then hire someone who can come up with a decent business model for you .
If you ca n't do it , and no one else can do it , then whatever you created was n't going to net you any money whether piracy is rampant or not .
Lots of people are finding ways to make money with music , movies , books , and other copyrightable things despite their works being freely available .
In fact , many of them are also making money while encouraging the copying of their stuff .
It can be done .
It is being done .
And those who ca n't do it will not last long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can create something that a lot of people want and yet can't figure out a way to get people to pay you money then hire someone who can come up with a decent business model for you.
If you can't do it, and no one else can do it, then whatever you created wasn't going to net you any money whether piracy is rampant or not.
Lots of people are finding ways to make money with music, movies, books, and other copyrightable things despite their works being freely available.
In fact, many of them are also making money while encouraging the copying of their stuff.
It can be done.
It is being done.
And those who can't do it will not last long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785158</id>
	<title>Industry lobbyists hint at the truth of ACTA?</title>
	<author>NimbleSquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1263555900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This only goes to prove that ACTA is utterly driven by lobbyists for the entertainment inductry (MPAA, RIAA and such). Politicians aren't doing this for the people, just big business, and keeping this secret is really about hiding their shame. If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...it's clear that many governments don't actually want their own people to see the proposals being made and to shape their outcome.</p></div><p>
It goes to show that it really pays to be a lobbyist:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Keeping negotiations secret is how "you get big fees to be a lobbyist," since only the "insiders" have access to the process.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This only goes to prove that ACTA is utterly driven by lobbyists for the entertainment inductry ( MPAA , RIAA and such ) .
Politicians are n't doing this for the people , just big business , and keeping this secret is really about hiding their shame .
If people knew what was really going on , talks would probably break down from public outcry alone .
...it 's clear that many governments do n't actually want their own people to see the proposals being made and to shape their outcome .
It goes to show that it really pays to be a lobbyist : Keeping negotiations secret is how " you get big fees to be a lobbyist , " since only the " insiders " have access to the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This only goes to prove that ACTA is utterly driven by lobbyists for the entertainment inductry (MPAA, RIAA and such).
Politicians aren't doing this for the people, just big business, and keeping this secret is really about hiding their shame.
If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.
...it's clear that many governments don't actually want their own people to see the proposals being made and to shape their outcome.
It goes to show that it really pays to be a lobbyist:Keeping negotiations secret is how "you get big fees to be a lobbyist," since only the "insiders" have access to the process.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786176</id>
	<title>Re:Industry lobbyists hint at the truth of ACTA?</title>
	<author>IndigoDarkwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1263562380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.</p></div><p>Why do you think that? It didn't work for health care reform in the U.S. The politicians just became more blatant about their secrecy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people knew what was really going on , talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.Why do you think that ?
It did n't work for health care reform in the U.S. The politicians just became more blatant about their secrecy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.Why do you think that?
It didn't work for health care reform in the U.S. The politicians just became more blatant about their secrecy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785602</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1263558360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors. Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet? I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop. Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself. That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.</p></div><p>Tell that the open source movement and bands that encourage fans to download their music. Also, the people who make icons, wallpapers and gui themes and then release them for free online. Worried about movies? The only movie I can think of from last year that was worth getting was Ink. Did I mention that the creators are happy about how frequently torrented it is? Maybe we'll lose some Hannah Montana and generic comedy movies but that's what makes it win-win.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors .
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet ?
I ca n't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop .
Ca n't be a very successful band without some form of digital media , whether you 're signed or produce it yourself .
That wo n't turn a profit once its all across the web.Tell that the open source movement and bands that encourage fans to download their music .
Also , the people who make icons , wallpapers and gui themes and then release them for free online .
Worried about movies ?
The only movie I can think of from last year that was worth getting was Ink .
Did I mention that the creators are happy about how frequently torrented it is ?
Maybe we 'll lose some Hannah Montana and generic comedy movies but that 's what makes it win-win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors.
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?
I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop.
Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself.
That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.Tell that the open source movement and bands that encourage fans to download their music.
Also, the people who make icons, wallpapers and gui themes and then release them for free online.
Worried about movies?
The only movie I can think of from last year that was worth getting was Ink.
Did I mention that the creators are happy about how frequently torrented it is?
Maybe we'll lose some Hannah Montana and generic comedy movies but that's what makes it win-win.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30789108</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't see...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263642240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You did? You<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... TERRORISTS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did ?
You ... you ... TERRORISTS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You did?
You ... you ... TERRORISTS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787680</id>
	<title>Good reasons to keep a trade treaty secret</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1263576360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are actually good reasons to keep drafts of a trade treaty secret, or at least to keep Congress from meddling too much in the negotiation of a trade treaty (and one way to accomplish that is secrecy). Often a trade treaty might involve lowering tariffs or other barriers to trade, which result in a net economic benefit to the countries involved as a whole. However, they also hurt specific businesses or industries, which have a strong incentive to mobilize and lobby against lowering tariffs (see, e.g., <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/business/global/12tires.html" title="nytimes.com">Chinese tires</a> [nytimes.com]). By keeping a treaty secret until most details have been hammered out, it gives less time for special interests to derail what can potentially be overall a beneficial product.</p><p>That said, as Jonathan Band of Policy Bandwidth (one of the panelists) pointed out during the event, <b>ACTA is fundamentally not a trade agreement</b>, and it's dishonest to pretend that it is, even if it has "trade" in the name. ACTA seems to be combination agreement on customs and law enforcement (not trade) and on intellectual property (also not trade). This difference is important, because IP agreements have a much more transparent history than trade agreements. This is something that Jamie Love kept trying to point out to Steve Metalitz; Steve was arguing that ACTA is no less transparent than trade agreement X, but the proper comparison would be any of WIPO's recent work, and the fact that NGOs, business groups, and academics all have access to draft WIPO agreements and resolutions, and their input is taken seriously. Draft texts are even put up on the Internet. That's transparency. It's also precisely the reason why ACTA can't be negotiated in a forum like WIPO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are actually good reasons to keep drafts of a trade treaty secret , or at least to keep Congress from meddling too much in the negotiation of a trade treaty ( and one way to accomplish that is secrecy ) .
Often a trade treaty might involve lowering tariffs or other barriers to trade , which result in a net economic benefit to the countries involved as a whole .
However , they also hurt specific businesses or industries , which have a strong incentive to mobilize and lobby against lowering tariffs ( see , e.g. , Chinese tires [ nytimes.com ] ) .
By keeping a treaty secret until most details have been hammered out , it gives less time for special interests to derail what can potentially be overall a beneficial product.That said , as Jonathan Band of Policy Bandwidth ( one of the panelists ) pointed out during the event , ACTA is fundamentally not a trade agreement , and it 's dishonest to pretend that it is , even if it has " trade " in the name .
ACTA seems to be combination agreement on customs and law enforcement ( not trade ) and on intellectual property ( also not trade ) .
This difference is important , because IP agreements have a much more transparent history than trade agreements .
This is something that Jamie Love kept trying to point out to Steve Metalitz ; Steve was arguing that ACTA is no less transparent than trade agreement X , but the proper comparison would be any of WIPO 's recent work , and the fact that NGOs , business groups , and academics all have access to draft WIPO agreements and resolutions , and their input is taken seriously .
Draft texts are even put up on the Internet .
That 's transparency .
It 's also precisely the reason why ACTA ca n't be negotiated in a forum like WIPO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are actually good reasons to keep drafts of a trade treaty secret, or at least to keep Congress from meddling too much in the negotiation of a trade treaty (and one way to accomplish that is secrecy).
Often a trade treaty might involve lowering tariffs or other barriers to trade, which result in a net economic benefit to the countries involved as a whole.
However, they also hurt specific businesses or industries, which have a strong incentive to mobilize and lobby against lowering tariffs (see, e.g., Chinese tires [nytimes.com]).
By keeping a treaty secret until most details have been hammered out, it gives less time for special interests to derail what can potentially be overall a beneficial product.That said, as Jonathan Band of Policy Bandwidth (one of the panelists) pointed out during the event, ACTA is fundamentally not a trade agreement, and it's dishonest to pretend that it is, even if it has "trade" in the name.
ACTA seems to be combination agreement on customs and law enforcement (not trade) and on intellectual property (also not trade).
This difference is important, because IP agreements have a much more transparent history than trade agreements.
This is something that Jamie Love kept trying to point out to Steve Metalitz; Steve was arguing that ACTA is no less transparent than trade agreement X, but the proper comparison would be any of WIPO's recent work, and the fact that NGOs, business groups, and academics all have access to draft WIPO agreements and resolutions, and their input is taken seriously.
Draft texts are even put up on the Internet.
That's transparency.
It's also precisely the reason why ACTA can't be negotiated in a forum like WIPO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785686</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't see...</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1263558840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure at some point the RIAA/MPAA will tell us that it will compromise national security if they tell what's being negotiated.  After that, they will claim it's to protect children, because a lot of kiddy porn is exchanged at these secret meetings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure at some point the RIAA/MPAA will tell us that it will compromise national security if they tell what 's being negotiated .
After that , they will claim it 's to protect children , because a lot of kiddy porn is exchanged at these secret meetings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure at some point the RIAA/MPAA will tell us that it will compromise national security if they tell what's being negotiated.
After that, they will claim it's to protect children, because a lot of kiddy porn is exchanged at these secret meetings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786030</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>bfree</author>
	<datestamp>1263561120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors. Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?</p></div><p>I've bought hundreds of books where I could as easily have borrowed them from a friend or a library, I also prefer to read from paper then a screen.   Also you can't copy a performance so comedians, musicians and actors would all have their place (as would cinema's).</p><p>Think of it this way, you download and read a book from a current author (films and albums are just the same) and enjoy it, you can just hope they keep producing works or maybe you'll think that you'd like to encourage them so you send then a contribution in thanks (or buy some product they sell).   Crowd-patronage for those who can inspire their audience to show their appreciation for them.  Yes it changes the balance of power, but I think it's clear that the current system is horribly broken with corporations owning "moral rights", buying their legal perpetual extension and now trying to force extra legal protections in via secret treaties.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors .
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet ? I 've bought hundreds of books where I could as easily have borrowed them from a friend or a library , I also prefer to read from paper then a screen .
Also you ca n't copy a performance so comedians , musicians and actors would all have their place ( as would cinema 's ) .Think of it this way , you download and read a book from a current author ( films and albums are just the same ) and enjoy it , you can just hope they keep producing works or maybe you 'll think that you 'd like to encourage them so you send then a contribution in thanks ( or buy some product they sell ) .
Crowd-patronage for those who can inspire their audience to show their appreciation for them .
Yes it changes the balance of power , but I think it 's clear that the current system is horribly broken with corporations owning " moral rights " , buying their legal perpetual extension and now trying to force extra legal protections in via secret treaties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors.
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?I've bought hundreds of books where I could as easily have borrowed them from a friend or a library, I also prefer to read from paper then a screen.
Also you can't copy a performance so comedians, musicians and actors would all have their place (as would cinema's).Think of it this way, you download and read a book from a current author (films and albums are just the same) and enjoy it, you can just hope they keep producing works or maybe you'll think that you'd like to encourage them so you send then a contribution in thanks (or buy some product they sell).
Crowd-patronage for those who can inspire their audience to show their appreciation for them.
Yes it changes the balance of power, but I think it's clear that the current system is horribly broken with corporations owning "moral rights", buying their legal perpetual extension and now trying to force extra legal protections in via secret treaties.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785564</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1263558120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors.</i></p><p>Goodbye American Idol.</p><p>Goodbye John and Kate Plus Eight.</p><p>Goodbye I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.</p><p>Goodbye and good riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors.Goodbye American Idol.Goodbye John and Kate Plus Eight.Goodbye I 'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.Goodbye and good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors.Goodbye American Idol.Goodbye John and Kate Plus Eight.Goodbye I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.Goodbye and good riddance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787214</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1263571020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're full of shit.</p><p>People will just go back to publishing their novels and books in serial format in monthly publications.  This is how many of the classic books of the last 300 years were published.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're full of shit.People will just go back to publishing their novels and books in serial format in monthly publications .
This is how many of the classic books of the last 300 years were published .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're full of shit.People will just go back to publishing their novels and books in serial format in monthly publications.
This is how many of the classic books of the last 300 years were published.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785920</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263560400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.</p></div></blockquote><p>Now that's a basis for an interesting thought experiment. Suppose that "physical property" can be as easily copied as (I hate that term) "intellectual property".</p><p>How would that influence the beer market? Would people still buy beer from those who produce it, who research and develop new varieties? Or would those people just take some present samples from the moment and go on with duplicating them till the end of the world, which would quickly put all breweries out of business?</p><p>But then, maybe before the end of the world everyone would manage to get bored to death, having the same types of beer to choose from, and they'd become eager to pay for beer if someone would provide some new flavour?</p><p>That would of course create a small market for some innovative breweries.</p><p>I think that in such a scenario, some equilibrium would eventually be reached, a middle ground between free copies completely eliminating brewery businesses and beer duplication being completely restricted using legislative means.</p><p>E.g. you could legally duplicate some beer (that you've purchased or had already owned) on a party for your friends, but you'd be punished if you had placed a beer-dispensing machine outside your home for all passers by.</p><p>Does this provide an answer to today's copyright problems? I dunno, I just like imagining the idea of not having to go out to a 24h shop in the middle of the night just because there's no more beer in the fridge<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is like telling drinkers that they can not use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.Now that 's a basis for an interesting thought experiment .
Suppose that " physical property " can be as easily copied as ( I hate that term ) " intellectual property " .How would that influence the beer market ?
Would people still buy beer from those who produce it , who research and develop new varieties ?
Or would those people just take some present samples from the moment and go on with duplicating them till the end of the world , which would quickly put all breweries out of business ? But then , maybe before the end of the world everyone would manage to get bored to death , having the same types of beer to choose from , and they 'd become eager to pay for beer if someone would provide some new flavour ? That would of course create a small market for some innovative breweries.I think that in such a scenario , some equilibrium would eventually be reached , a middle ground between free copies completely eliminating brewery businesses and beer duplication being completely restricted using legislative means.E.g .
you could legally duplicate some beer ( that you 've purchased or had already owned ) on a party for your friends , but you 'd be punished if you had placed a beer-dispensing machine outside your home for all passers by.Does this provide an answer to today 's copyright problems ?
I dunno , I just like imagining the idea of not having to go out to a 24h shop in the middle of the night just because there 's no more beer in the fridge ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.Now that's a basis for an interesting thought experiment.
Suppose that "physical property" can be as easily copied as (I hate that term) "intellectual property".How would that influence the beer market?
Would people still buy beer from those who produce it, who research and develop new varieties?
Or would those people just take some present samples from the moment and go on with duplicating them till the end of the world, which would quickly put all breweries out of business?But then, maybe before the end of the world everyone would manage to get bored to death, having the same types of beer to choose from, and they'd become eager to pay for beer if someone would provide some new flavour?That would of course create a small market for some innovative breweries.I think that in such a scenario, some equilibrium would eventually be reached, a middle ground between free copies completely eliminating brewery businesses and beer duplication being completely restricted using legislative means.E.g.
you could legally duplicate some beer (that you've purchased or had already owned) on a party for your friends, but you'd be punished if you had placed a beer-dispensing machine outside your home for all passers by.Does this provide an answer to today's copyright problems?
I dunno, I just like imagining the idea of not having to go out to a 24h shop in the middle of the night just because there's no more beer in the fridge ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788200</id>
	<title>Re:Like healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step 1: Every hand offered to the Republicans is savagely bitten<br>Step 2: Every attempt to negotiate results in the bill being crapped in, and zero or nearly-zero Republican votes<br>Step 3: Wake up and realize "why the hell were we trying to include them in a process they've openly claimed they want to poison by any means possible?"<br>Step 4: Get things done</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : Every hand offered to the Republicans is savagely bittenStep 2 : Every attempt to negotiate results in the bill being crapped in , and zero or nearly-zero Republican votesStep 3 : Wake up and realize " why the hell were we trying to include them in a process they 've openly claimed they want to poison by any means possible ?
" Step 4 : Get things done</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: Every hand offered to the Republicans is savagely bittenStep 2: Every attempt to negotiate results in the bill being crapped in, and zero or nearly-zero Republican votesStep 3: Wake up and realize "why the hell were we trying to include them in a process they've openly claimed they want to poison by any means possible?
"Step 4: Get things done</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785502</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1263557820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself.</p></div><p>Bands earn money by performing and touring.<br> <br>
99.9\% of the world gets by on getting money for continuing to work, not by forcing everyone to pay them for something they did 20 years ago.  The entertainment industry will soon realize their draconian "get rich quick!" schemes are dead.  Their creativity-killing "sell-a-single-never-work-again" methods are finally dying.   It's tragic that if someone actually releases 3 albums in a year, they are viewed as a hack.  That's how bad it's gotten, and it can and will change -- soon.<br> <br>
"But that will kill the creative industry and entertainment industry!" you might say.  Hooty tooty.  If I ask you to name the most brilliant English writer of all time, and then the greatest, most creative influence on music of all time, and you are over the age of 12, you will name two people who did not operate under a "publish today without having to perform tomorrow, and you will still eat" creed.  They will be people who starved if they tried to sit back and watch money roll in for Romeo and Juliet or Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.<br> <br>
Copyright is ruined.  It was ruined by those who thought they could get away by expanding it to infinity.  Their greed has turned on them, and when the camel realized he doesn't have the carry the straw anymore, he won't sit and wait for one more to break his back.<br> <br>
Does this mean that small development houses are going to have to change the way they operate?  Most likely.  They'll still have many years until the laws change -- but those who change earlier will be the ones who make insane amounts of money on lifeboats while the great ships are all sinking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't be a very successful band without some form of digital media , whether you 're signed or produce it yourself.Bands earn money by performing and touring .
99.9 \ % of the world gets by on getting money for continuing to work , not by forcing everyone to pay them for something they did 20 years ago .
The entertainment industry will soon realize their draconian " get rich quick !
" schemes are dead .
Their creativity-killing " sell-a-single-never-work-again " methods are finally dying .
It 's tragic that if someone actually releases 3 albums in a year , they are viewed as a hack .
That 's how bad it 's gotten , and it can and will change -- soon .
" But that will kill the creative industry and entertainment industry !
" you might say .
Hooty tooty .
If I ask you to name the most brilliant English writer of all time , and then the greatest , most creative influence on music of all time , and you are over the age of 12 , you will name two people who did not operate under a " publish today without having to perform tomorrow , and you will still eat " creed .
They will be people who starved if they tried to sit back and watch money roll in for Romeo and Juliet or Eine Kleine Nachtmusik .
Copyright is ruined .
It was ruined by those who thought they could get away by expanding it to infinity .
Their greed has turned on them , and when the camel realized he does n't have the carry the straw anymore , he wo n't sit and wait for one more to break his back .
Does this mean that small development houses are going to have to change the way they operate ?
Most likely .
They 'll still have many years until the laws change -- but those who change earlier will be the ones who make insane amounts of money on lifeboats while the great ships are all sinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself.Bands earn money by performing and touring.
99.9\% of the world gets by on getting money for continuing to work, not by forcing everyone to pay them for something they did 20 years ago.
The entertainment industry will soon realize their draconian "get rich quick!
" schemes are dead.
Their creativity-killing "sell-a-single-never-work-again" methods are finally dying.
It's tragic that if someone actually releases 3 albums in a year, they are viewed as a hack.
That's how bad it's gotten, and it can and will change -- soon.
"But that will kill the creative industry and entertainment industry!
" you might say.
Hooty tooty.
If I ask you to name the most brilliant English writer of all time, and then the greatest, most creative influence on music of all time, and you are over the age of 12, you will name two people who did not operate under a "publish today without having to perform tomorrow, and you will still eat" creed.
They will be people who starved if they tried to sit back and watch money roll in for Romeo and Juliet or Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.
Copyright is ruined.
It was ruined by those who thought they could get away by expanding it to infinity.
Their greed has turned on them, and when the camel realized he doesn't have the carry the straw anymore, he won't sit and wait for one more to break his back.
Does this mean that small development houses are going to have to change the way they operate?
Most likely.
They'll still have many years until the laws change -- but those who change earlier will be the ones who make insane amounts of money on lifeboats while the great ships are all sinking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788004</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1263579600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe you should then sell something other than the digital good. say 10k signed copies of the book. The rights to make it a movie. posters, action figures, cards, etc. Performances of your book. The stage adaptation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe you should then sell something other than the digital good .
say 10k signed copies of the book .
The rights to make it a movie .
posters , action figures , cards , etc .
Performances of your book .
The stage adaptation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe you should then sell something other than the digital good.
say 10k signed copies of the book.
The rights to make it a movie.
posters, action figures, cards, etc.
Performances of your book.
The stage adaptation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30789330</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1263645180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors. Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet? I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop. Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself. That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Not only is that untrue - since almost all books anyone would care to read are already easy to download using any P2P program yet they are still being published and the same goes for music and movies - but, even if it were true, would anything of value be lost? The Internet is full of both original and derived fiction, art, music, and increasingly even movies, all of which were created without profit motive and uploaded by their authors to be read for free. If you can't be bothered to write unless you're paid enough to live off it, then, frankly, that's less of a loss for our society than having our technology crippled by DRM and our legal system perverted to disproportionate retribution for copyright violations just to ensure that you get paid.</p><blockquote><div><p>No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Yes, it would. It would be exactly like trying to force the continuation of scarcity economy despite unlimited personal manufacturing capabilities being at everyone's reach just to enrich a few brewery/factory owners. You hit the nail straight on the head, and by doing so demonstrated the sheer absurdity of your own position.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted .
Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors .
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet ?
I ca n't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop .
Ca n't be a very successful band without some form of digital media , whether you 're signed or produce it yourself .
That wo n't turn a profit once its all across the web .
Not only is that untrue - since almost all books anyone would care to read are already easy to download using any P2P program yet they are still being published and the same goes for music and movies - but , even if it were true , would anything of value be lost ?
The Internet is full of both original and derived fiction , art , music , and increasingly even movies , all of which were created without profit motive and uploaded by their authors to be read for free .
If you ca n't be bothered to write unless you 're paid enough to live off it , then , frankly , that 's less of a loss for our society than having our technology crippled by DRM and our legal system perverted to disproportionate retribution for copyright violations just to ensure that you get paid.No , this is like telling drinkers that they can not use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends .
Yes , it would .
It would be exactly like trying to force the continuation of scarcity economy despite unlimited personal manufacturing capabilities being at everyone 's reach just to enrich a few brewery/factory owners .
You hit the nail straight on the head , and by doing so demonstrated the sheer absurdity of your own position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.
Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors.
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?
I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop.
Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself.
That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.
Not only is that untrue - since almost all books anyone would care to read are already easy to download using any P2P program yet they are still being published and the same goes for music and movies - but, even if it were true, would anything of value be lost?
The Internet is full of both original and derived fiction, art, music, and increasingly even movies, all of which were created without profit motive and uploaded by their authors to be read for free.
If you can't be bothered to write unless you're paid enough to live off it, then, frankly, that's less of a loss for our society than having our technology crippled by DRM and our legal system perverted to disproportionate retribution for copyright violations just to ensure that you get paid.No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.
Yes, it would.
It would be exactly like trying to force the continuation of scarcity economy despite unlimited personal manufacturing capabilities being at everyone's reach just to enrich a few brewery/factory owners.
You hit the nail straight on the head, and by doing so demonstrated the sheer absurdity of your own position.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785044</id>
	<title>Metalitz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263555360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Any relation to Metallica??</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any relation to Metallica ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any relation to Metallica?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785826</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't see...</title>
	<author>Shatteredstar</author>
	<datestamp>1263559800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because then PEOPLE might actually raise their voice and try to protect/damage the ability of the groups to get this signed sealed and delivered so they can begin the great POP Campaign as I call it (with less vulgar wording)

POP Campaign=Poop On the People Campaign.  Which seems what the MPAA and RIAA like to do.

Welcome to the future, where rather then try to try to encourage people to buy your products because they are good you MAKE people buy your products because you're the only game in town and they will enjoy it or you get money from them otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because then PEOPLE might actually raise their voice and try to protect/damage the ability of the groups to get this signed sealed and delivered so they can begin the great POP Campaign as I call it ( with less vulgar wording ) POP Campaign = Poop On the People Campaign .
Which seems what the MPAA and RIAA like to do .
Welcome to the future , where rather then try to try to encourage people to buy your products because they are good you MAKE people buy your products because you 're the only game in town and they will enjoy it or you get money from them otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because then PEOPLE might actually raise their voice and try to protect/damage the ability of the groups to get this signed sealed and delivered so they can begin the great POP Campaign as I call it (with less vulgar wording)

POP Campaign=Poop On the People Campaign.
Which seems what the MPAA and RIAA like to do.
Welcome to the future, where rather then try to try to encourage people to buy your products because they are good you MAKE people buy your products because you're the only game in town and they will enjoy it or you get money from them otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30792604</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1263675420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that we should pay for the scarce thing, not the plentiful. So, once a song is performed, it is anything but scarce. It can be copied in an instant at a cost too small to count. What's not plentiful is the writer and performer of the song. That's worth something.</p><p>On a more general level, copyright intends to create an artificial scarcity to support creators. Supporting creators is good, but I can't imagine any reason to dis-believe that scarcity is bad. It may be reality, but it is bad. Given a choice between expensive and insufficient food and more than enough for everyone and too cheap to bother charging for, guess which is the better situation. There's quite enough scarcity in this world, do we really need to create more? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that we should pay for the scarce thing , not the plentiful .
So , once a song is performed , it is anything but scarce .
It can be copied in an instant at a cost too small to count .
What 's not plentiful is the writer and performer of the song .
That 's worth something.On a more general level , copyright intends to create an artificial scarcity to support creators .
Supporting creators is good , but I ca n't imagine any reason to dis-believe that scarcity is bad .
It may be reality , but it is bad .
Given a choice between expensive and insufficient food and more than enough for everyone and too cheap to bother charging for , guess which is the better situation .
There 's quite enough scarcity in this world , do we really need to create more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that we should pay for the scarce thing, not the plentiful.
So, once a song is performed, it is anything but scarce.
It can be copied in an instant at a cost too small to count.
What's not plentiful is the writer and performer of the song.
That's worth something.On a more general level, copyright intends to create an artificial scarcity to support creators.
Supporting creators is good, but I can't imagine any reason to dis-believe that scarcity is bad.
It may be reality, but it is bad.
Given a choice between expensive and insufficient food and more than enough for everyone and too cheap to bother charging for, guess which is the better situation.
There's quite enough scarcity in this world, do we really need to create more? </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785894</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't see...</title>
	<author>Shatteredstar</author>
	<datestamp>1263560280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget because Piracy accounts for *shakes magic eight ball..and then uses another more special eight ball* fifty hojillion in lost profits. Don't forget also that its Obama that is causing it I'm sure. For the other people in the crowd, Bush caused it too! Hmm other tried and true conspiracy reasoning...umm Major League Baseball and their steroids and gay marriage caused the LHC to not create a black hole but cause the copyrights to turn into mutants? I dunno.
Figured I'd toss in a few various things for the crowd to latch onto to gnash their teeth over!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget because Piracy accounts for * shakes magic eight ball..and then uses another more special eight ball * fifty hojillion in lost profits .
Do n't forget also that its Obama that is causing it I 'm sure .
For the other people in the crowd , Bush caused it too !
Hmm other tried and true conspiracy reasoning...umm Major League Baseball and their steroids and gay marriage caused the LHC to not create a black hole but cause the copyrights to turn into mutants ?
I dunno .
Figured I 'd toss in a few various things for the crowd to latch onto to gnash their teeth over !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget because Piracy accounts for *shakes magic eight ball..and then uses another more special eight ball* fifty hojillion in lost profits.
Don't forget also that its Obama that is causing it I'm sure.
For the other people in the crowd, Bush caused it too!
Hmm other tried and true conspiracy reasoning...umm Major League Baseball and their steroids and gay marriage caused the LHC to not create a black hole but cause the copyrights to turn into mutants?
I dunno.
Figured I'd toss in a few various things for the crowd to latch onto to gnash their teeth over!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785220</id>
	<title>Yo dawg, I hear you like transparency in your ACTA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263556260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well you ain't gonna get it, so #### off!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you ai n't gon na get it , so # # # # off ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you ain't gonna get it, so #### off!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785848</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263559920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is the problem, we won't hang them for doing it.  We went back to being sheep the moment Washington succeed in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion.  It really is time we organize again, stand together, refuse to comply with their New World Order crap, and violently oppose those who would make us comply.</p><p>Remember the revolution was not fought successfuly because we played by the Brits rules of battle field warfare.  We hid in trees and shot first at the officers, we burned their homes and encampments on Christmas Eve.</p><p>Asymmetrical selection of targets and letting go of the rules and fighting a total war is how you win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is the problem , we wo n't hang them for doing it .
We went back to being sheep the moment Washington succeed in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion .
It really is time we organize again , stand together , refuse to comply with their New World Order crap , and violently oppose those who would make us comply.Remember the revolution was not fought successfuly because we played by the Brits rules of battle field warfare .
We hid in trees and shot first at the officers , we burned their homes and encampments on Christmas Eve.Asymmetrical selection of targets and letting go of the rules and fighting a total war is how you win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is the problem, we won't hang them for doing it.
We went back to being sheep the moment Washington succeed in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion.
It really is time we organize again, stand together, refuse to comply with their New World Order crap, and violently oppose those who would make us comply.Remember the revolution was not fought successfuly because we played by the Brits rules of battle field warfare.
We hid in trees and shot first at the officers, we burned their homes and encampments on Christmas Eve.Asymmetrical selection of targets and letting go of the rules and fighting a total war is how you win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787642</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263576000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet? I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop.</p></div></blockquote><p>What makes you it would sell a sufficient number of copies to make you a living?  Why do you think think you are entitled to make a living?  Just putting work into a book doesn't entitle anybody else to a living.  Many existing good authors don't make a living from a book as it is, so this is little more than a sense of self-entitlement.</p><p>Exactly the same can be said for musicians, actors and television presenters, artists, sportsmen and sportswomen, and in pretty much any other field: just doing something does not guarantee an income!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet ?
I ca n't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop.What makes you it would sell a sufficient number of copies to make you a living ?
Why do you think think you are entitled to make a living ?
Just putting work into a book does n't entitle anybody else to a living .
Many existing good authors do n't make a living from a book as it is , so this is little more than a sense of self-entitlement.Exactly the same can be said for musicians , actors and television presenters , artists , sportsmen and sportswomen , and in pretty much any other field : just doing something does not guarantee an income !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?
I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop.What makes you it would sell a sufficient number of copies to make you a living?
Why do you think think you are entitled to make a living?
Just putting work into a book doesn't entitle anybody else to a living.
Many existing good authors don't make a living from a book as it is, so this is little more than a sense of self-entitlement.Exactly the same can be said for musicians, actors and television presenters, artists, sportsmen and sportswomen, and in pretty much any other field: just doing something does not guarantee an income!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785184</id>
	<title>draft on wikileaks</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1263556020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For handy access:

<ul>
<li> <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Classified\_US\%2C\_Japan\_and\_EU\_ACTA\_trade\_agreement\_drafts\%2C\_2009" title="wikileaks.org">A draft that was leaked via Wikileaks</a> [wikileaks.org] (actually, it's offline until Jan 18th, but that's where you'll find the link when they're back to usual business</li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA" title="swpat.org">A few links and bits of info about the patent provisions (not the focus)</a> [swpat.org] </li><li>Have others got links to concise analyses from other angles?</li></ul><p>

Of course, this draft is from last year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For handy access : A draft that was leaked via Wikileaks [ wikileaks.org ] ( actually , it 's offline until Jan 18th , but that 's where you 'll find the link when they 're back to usual business A few links and bits of info about the patent provisions ( not the focus ) [ swpat.org ] Have others got links to concise analyses from other angles ?
Of course , this draft is from last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For handy access:


 A draft that was leaked via Wikileaks [wikileaks.org] (actually, it's offline until Jan 18th, but that's where you'll find the link when they're back to usual business A few links and bits of info about the patent provisions (not the focus) [swpat.org] Have others got links to concise analyses from other angles?
Of course, this draft is from last year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786074</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't see...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263561540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me, the rule is simple: I can&rsquo;t adhere to something that I don&rsquo;t know. Even if I would want to. Which I don&rsquo;t.</p><p>So what is the goal? Either they gonna open it up, as soon as it is quietly signed into law.</p><p>Or they employ the same tactic that churches use to control people: Make everything a sin, especially what people really wanna do. Because if everybody can be a sinner, but does not know when, they all have to do exactly as you say, to not be &ldquo;caught&rdquo;. Basically turning it around so that you have to prove you&rsquo;re not guilty, with no chance of you doing that.</p><p>Hell, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100114/1857247768.shtml" title="techdirt.com" rel="nofollow">remember that couple who sued people for copyright infringement, only because they <em>talked</em> about a photo shown on a show</a> [techdirt.com]? With ACTA they could get their &ldquo;right&rdquo; right away. No questions asked.<br>You could make <em>anything</em> up. Like &ldquo;Hey, you! Do you hear me?&rdquo;, &ldquo;Yes!&rdquo;, &ldquo;Then I&rsquo;ll sue you for copying my speech into your brain!&rdquo;<br>The &ldquo;sky&rdquo; is the limit.</p><p>I begin to think that signing it quietly into law is the less bad way... Or maybe I&rsquo;ve got too much imagination?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , the rule is simple : I can    t adhere to something that I don    t know .
Even if I would want to .
Which I don    t.So what is the goal ?
Either they gon na open it up , as soon as it is quietly signed into law.Or they employ the same tactic that churches use to control people : Make everything a sin , especially what people really wan na do .
Because if everybody can be a sinner , but does not know when , they all have to do exactly as you say , to not be    caught    .
Basically turning it around so that you have to prove you    re not guilty , with no chance of you doing that.Hell , remember that couple who sued people for copyright infringement , only because they talked about a photo shown on a show [ techdirt.com ] ?
With ACTA they could get their    right    right away .
No questions asked.You could make anything up .
Like    Hey , you !
Do you hear me ?    ,    Yes !    ,    Then I    ll sue you for copying my speech into your brain !    The    sky    is the limit.I begin to think that signing it quietly into law is the less bad way... Or maybe I    ve got too much imagination ?
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, the rule is simple: I can’t adhere to something that I don’t know.
Even if I would want to.
Which I don’t.So what is the goal?
Either they gonna open it up, as soon as it is quietly signed into law.Or they employ the same tactic that churches use to control people: Make everything a sin, especially what people really wanna do.
Because if everybody can be a sinner, but does not know when, they all have to do exactly as you say, to not be “caught”.
Basically turning it around so that you have to prove you’re not guilty, with no chance of you doing that.Hell, remember that couple who sued people for copyright infringement, only because they talked about a photo shown on a show [techdirt.com]?
With ACTA they could get their “right” right away.
No questions asked.You could make anything up.
Like “Hey, you!
Do you hear me?”, “Yes!”, “Then I’ll sue you for copying my speech into your brain!”The “sky” is the limit.I begin to think that signing it quietly into law is the less bad way... Or maybe I’ve got too much imagination?
:/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785838</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1263559860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.</p></div><p>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors. Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet? I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop. Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself. That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.</p></div><p>Tell that to Baen Books. <a href="http://www.baen.com/library/" title="baen.com">http://www.baen.com/library/</a> [baen.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors .
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet ?
I ca n't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop .
Ca n't be a very successful band without some form of digital media , whether you 're signed or produce it yourself .
That wo n't turn a profit once its all across the web.Tell that to Baen Books .
http : //www.baen.com/library/ [ baen.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors.
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?
I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop.
Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself.
That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.Tell that to Baen Books.
http://www.baen.com/library/ [baen.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785418</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263557460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?  Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself.</p></div></blockquote><p>

"Successful author" means talentless infantile hacks like Stephenie Meyer. "Successful band" means a bunch of hand-picked-by-studio-executive androgynous pretty boys playing candy-ass tunes they didn't even write.<br> <br>

You want to be "successful"? Invent a time machine, go back in time, and give away your childhood dancing for the Mickey Mouse Club. Then let me borrow your time machine so I can go back to the '60's when <i>real</i> music was being made.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet ?
Ca n't be a very successful band without some form of digital media , whether you 're signed or produce it yourself .
" Successful author " means talentless infantile hacks like Stephenie Meyer .
" Successful band " means a bunch of hand-picked-by-studio-executive androgynous pretty boys playing candy-ass tunes they did n't even write .
You want to be " successful " ?
Invent a time machine , go back in time , and give away your childhood dancing for the Mickey Mouse Club .
Then let me borrow your time machine so I can go back to the '60 's when real music was being made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?
Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself.
"Successful author" means talentless infantile hacks like Stephenie Meyer.
"Successful band" means a bunch of hand-picked-by-studio-executive androgynous pretty boys playing candy-ass tunes they didn't even write.
You want to be "successful"?
Invent a time machine, go back in time, and give away your childhood dancing for the Mickey Mouse Club.
Then let me borrow your time machine so I can go back to the '60's when real music was being made.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784962</id>
	<title>Like healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263554880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we can all agree that this is too important to negotiate the details in public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we can all agree that this is too important to negotiate the details in public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we can all agree that this is too important to negotiate the details in public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785824</id>
	<title>Re:Industry lobbyists hint at the truth of ACTA?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1263559800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.</p></div><p>I don't know, it's hard for me to imagine something that could be in a draft of ACTA that would penetrate the average citizen's consciousness, let alone outrage them enough to do something about it.</p><p>Killing FOSS?  No</p><p>Extradition and jail times for copying, not just sharing music?  Maybe, I'm not hopeful it would</p><p>Searching hard drives and MP3 players at the border?  Only after ACTA was already ratified once everyone going overseas was getting their MP3 players and computer hard drives destroyed.</p><p>Mandatory minimum jail times for people caught trying to rip and upload screeners of movies at the theaters?  Probably not</p><p>Force itunes and other digital distribution to sell only albums and not singles?  Probably not.</p><p>Worldwide mandatory internet filtering to keep people from finding pirated warez?  Honestly, no, I don't think that would.</p><p>The things that I think -would- cause an outrage for the average citizen are things that the MPAA has little interest in and would have to be creationism-level stupid to try anyway:</p><p>Banning MP3 players?  Yes</p><p>Worldwide mandatory internet censorship to block porn?  Yes</p><p>Maybe I'm just being cynical about the intelligence of the average citizen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people knew what was really going on , talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.I do n't know , it 's hard for me to imagine something that could be in a draft of ACTA that would penetrate the average citizen 's consciousness , let alone outrage them enough to do something about it.Killing FOSS ?
NoExtradition and jail times for copying , not just sharing music ?
Maybe , I 'm not hopeful it wouldSearching hard drives and MP3 players at the border ?
Only after ACTA was already ratified once everyone going overseas was getting their MP3 players and computer hard drives destroyed.Mandatory minimum jail times for people caught trying to rip and upload screeners of movies at the theaters ?
Probably notForce itunes and other digital distribution to sell only albums and not singles ?
Probably not.Worldwide mandatory internet filtering to keep people from finding pirated warez ?
Honestly , no , I do n't think that would.The things that I think -would- cause an outrage for the average citizen are things that the MPAA has little interest in and would have to be creationism-level stupid to try anyway : Banning MP3 players ?
YesWorldwide mandatory internet censorship to block porn ?
YesMaybe I 'm just being cynical about the intelligence of the average citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.I don't know, it's hard for me to imagine something that could be in a draft of ACTA that would penetrate the average citizen's consciousness, let alone outrage them enough to do something about it.Killing FOSS?
NoExtradition and jail times for copying, not just sharing music?
Maybe, I'm not hopeful it wouldSearching hard drives and MP3 players at the border?
Only after ACTA was already ratified once everyone going overseas was getting their MP3 players and computer hard drives destroyed.Mandatory minimum jail times for people caught trying to rip and upload screeners of movies at the theaters?
Probably notForce itunes and other digital distribution to sell only albums and not singles?
Probably not.Worldwide mandatory internet filtering to keep people from finding pirated warez?
Honestly, no, I don't think that would.The things that I think -would- cause an outrage for the average citizen are things that the MPAA has little interest in and would have to be creationism-level stupid to try anyway:Banning MP3 players?
YesWorldwide mandatory internet censorship to block porn?
YesMaybe I'm just being cynical about the intelligence of the average citizen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785210</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1263556200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.</p></div><p>For most American beers, this process is referred to as "pissing."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is like telling drinkers that they can not use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.For most American beers , this process is referred to as " pissing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.For most American beers, this process is referred to as "pissing.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</id>
	<title>I disagree</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263555960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.</p> </div><p>Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors. Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet? I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop. Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself. That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.</p></div><p>No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted .
Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors .
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet ?
I ca n't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop .
Ca n't be a very successful band without some form of digital media , whether you 're signed or produce it yourself .
That wo n't turn a profit once its all across the web.This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.No , this is like telling drinkers that they can not use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.
Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors.
Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?
I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop.
Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself.
That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787690</id>
	<title>You joke, but...</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1263576420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You joke, but the MPAA has actually called for the negotiations to be more transparent, if only to avoid the negative attention garnered by the current total lack of transparency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You joke , but the MPAA has actually called for the negotiations to be more transparent , if only to avoid the negative attention garnered by the current total lack of transparency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You joke, but the MPAA has actually called for the negotiations to be more transparent, if only to avoid the negative attention garnered by the current total lack of transparency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787726</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263576840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An even better thought experiment: suppose that we have true replicators capable of reproducing any item smaller than itself, but unlike StarTrek, it requires the constituent atoms to make it out of.  Some interesting effects would be that carbon nano tubes would be everywhere as they can made from literal crap.  Garbage and sewage would be only mildly less valuable than the original good itself (after transport it can be restored to its original condition).  The difficult question is, how many of these replicators will there be?  It cannot self replicate directly unless it is of a modular design to permit replicating parts of it. It would seem to be in the inventor's interest to maintain control of these and be able to produce every good more cheaply than conventionally, giving him market dominance in all small products (and indirectly most larger ones as a principal supplier).  Eventually the monopoly fades - someone else figures it out or someone is able to steal one, etc.  At that point they spread everywhere as transport is the only real difference in cost.  We now have the ability to maintain our current lifestyle with virtually no work (home maintenance, periodically place items in the replicator to have them restored to new, etc).  This scenario sounds great, but take a look at all of the jobs that have now been lost: retail sales positions are drastically reduced, manufacturing of existing products is depopulated, the list goes on and on.  I would expect we'd end up with 50\% unemployment were they deployed within a 5-10 year span.  It makes an interesting thought experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An even better thought experiment : suppose that we have true replicators capable of reproducing any item smaller than itself , but unlike StarTrek , it requires the constituent atoms to make it out of .
Some interesting effects would be that carbon nano tubes would be everywhere as they can made from literal crap .
Garbage and sewage would be only mildly less valuable than the original good itself ( after transport it can be restored to its original condition ) .
The difficult question is , how many of these replicators will there be ?
It can not self replicate directly unless it is of a modular design to permit replicating parts of it .
It would seem to be in the inventor 's interest to maintain control of these and be able to produce every good more cheaply than conventionally , giving him market dominance in all small products ( and indirectly most larger ones as a principal supplier ) .
Eventually the monopoly fades - someone else figures it out or someone is able to steal one , etc .
At that point they spread everywhere as transport is the only real difference in cost .
We now have the ability to maintain our current lifestyle with virtually no work ( home maintenance , periodically place items in the replicator to have them restored to new , etc ) .
This scenario sounds great , but take a look at all of the jobs that have now been lost : retail sales positions are drastically reduced , manufacturing of existing products is depopulated , the list goes on and on .
I would expect we 'd end up with 50 \ % unemployment were they deployed within a 5-10 year span .
It makes an interesting thought experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An even better thought experiment: suppose that we have true replicators capable of reproducing any item smaller than itself, but unlike StarTrek, it requires the constituent atoms to make it out of.
Some interesting effects would be that carbon nano tubes would be everywhere as they can made from literal crap.
Garbage and sewage would be only mildly less valuable than the original good itself (after transport it can be restored to its original condition).
The difficult question is, how many of these replicators will there be?
It cannot self replicate directly unless it is of a modular design to permit replicating parts of it.
It would seem to be in the inventor's interest to maintain control of these and be able to produce every good more cheaply than conventionally, giving him market dominance in all small products (and indirectly most larger ones as a principal supplier).
Eventually the monopoly fades - someone else figures it out or someone is able to steal one, etc.
At that point they spread everywhere as transport is the only real difference in cost.
We now have the ability to maintain our current lifestyle with virtually no work (home maintenance, periodically place items in the replicator to have them restored to new, etc).
This scenario sounds great, but take a look at all of the jobs that have now been lost: retail sales positions are drastically reduced, manufacturing of existing products is depopulated, the list goes on and on.
I would expect we'd end up with 50\% unemployment were they deployed within a 5-10 year span.
It makes an interesting thought experiment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012</id>
	<title>Avoid Snake Bites</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263555180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         These creeps are not dead and they will try other approaches to take away freedoms that we should all have and cherish. They have redefined piracy in order to make normal and usual human activity a crime. Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted. The notion that because it is easier to copy because we use computers is no excuse for the current plague of laws. This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These creeps are not dead and they will try other approaches to take away freedoms that we should all have and cherish .
They have redefined piracy in order to make normal and usual human activity a crime .
Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted .
The notion that because it is easier to copy because we use computers is no excuse for the current plague of laws .
This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         These creeps are not dead and they will try other approaches to take away freedoms that we should all have and cherish.
They have redefined piracy in order to make normal and usual human activity a crime.
Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.
The notion that because it is easier to copy because we use computers is no excuse for the current plague of laws.
This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787384</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263572700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>win what? a black president speaks to the success of nonviolent noncooperation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>win what ?
a black president speaks to the success of nonviolent noncooperation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>win what?
a black president speaks to the success of nonviolent noncooperation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785088</id>
	<title>The most disturbing point</title>
	<author>jwinster</author>
	<datestamp>1263555540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The most disturbing point in this article, for me, is that the US may be the sticking point on allowing the discussions to be more transparent (link contained in TFA) <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4693/125/" title="michaelgeist.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4693/125/</a> [michaelgeist.ca]  I find this to be disgusting as we have yet another example that transparency TRULY being brought to Washington to be a farce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most disturbing point in this article , for me , is that the US may be the sticking point on allowing the discussions to be more transparent ( link contained in TFA ) http : //www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4693/125/ [ michaelgeist.ca ] I find this to be disgusting as we have yet another example that transparency TRULY being brought to Washington to be a farce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most disturbing point in this article, for me, is that the US may be the sticking point on allowing the discussions to be more transparent (link contained in TFA) http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4693/125/ [michaelgeist.ca]  I find this to be disgusting as we have yet another example that transparency TRULY being brought to Washington to be a farce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787118</id>
	<title>Re:The most disturbing point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263569520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I'm not so sure one could infer that from the US position. It might also be a requirement of another, undisclosed party as there was the classification of "Foreign Government Information". The secrecy requirement could also follow from the interaction of some regulations concerning the handling of information in the US government and the type of information in question, that is, information disclosed by a foreign government.<br>
&nbsp; From TFA: "No one argues that every moment of the negotiating sessions needs to go on YouTube, or that there is never a place for an off-the-record exchange of views". Somebody might argue that every moment of the negotiations concerning the "environment of a consumer" should go to YouTube and that there is never a place for an off-the-record exchange of views any more than there should be one for the negotiations concerning the natural environment. The parties themselves would of course prepare their views openly or secretly, what ever suits them best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not so sure one could infer that from the US position .
It might also be a requirement of another , undisclosed party as there was the classification of " Foreign Government Information " .
The secrecy requirement could also follow from the interaction of some regulations concerning the handling of information in the US government and the type of information in question , that is , information disclosed by a foreign government .
  From TFA : " No one argues that every moment of the negotiating sessions needs to go on YouTube , or that there is never a place for an off-the-record exchange of views " .
Somebody might argue that every moment of the negotiations concerning the " environment of a consumer " should go to YouTube and that there is never a place for an off-the-record exchange of views any more than there should be one for the negotiations concerning the natural environment .
The parties themselves would of course prepare their views openly or secretly , what ever suits them best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm not so sure one could infer that from the US position.
It might also be a requirement of another, undisclosed party as there was the classification of "Foreign Government Information".
The secrecy requirement could also follow from the interaction of some regulations concerning the handling of information in the US government and the type of information in question, that is, information disclosed by a foreign government.
  From TFA: "No one argues that every moment of the negotiating sessions needs to go on YouTube, or that there is never a place for an off-the-record exchange of views".
Somebody might argue that every moment of the negotiations concerning the "environment of a consumer" should go to YouTube and that there is never a place for an off-the-record exchange of views any more than there should be one for the negotiations concerning the natural environment.
The parties themselves would of course prepare their views openly or secretly, what ever suits them best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788858</id>
	<title>Re:Like healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263638700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, when it comes to nationalized healthcare, at least there are countries where you can point to and say "look, that's what it's gonna be like".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , when it comes to nationalized healthcare , at least there are countries where you can point to and say " look , that 's what it 's gon na be like " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, when it comes to nationalized healthcare, at least there are countries where you can point to and say "look, that's what it's gonna be like".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998</id>
	<title>I still don't see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263555120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the hell a trade treaty is secret.  From anyone... let alone the people of the countrys involved in the agreement.</p><p>If you can't tell people what's in it.  It's most likely not a good thing and we'd like to hang you for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell a trade treaty is secret .
From anyone... let alone the people of the countrys involved in the agreement.If you ca n't tell people what 's in it .
It 's most likely not a good thing and we 'd like to hang you for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell a trade treaty is secret.
From anyone... let alone the people of the countrys involved in the agreement.If you can't tell people what's in it.
It's most likely not a good thing and we'd like to hang you for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787308</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't see...</title>
	<author>Kitkoan</author>
	<datestamp>1263571860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why the hell a trade treaty is secret.  From anyone... let alone the people of the countrys involved in the agreement.</p><p>If you can't tell people what's in it.  It's most likely not a good thing and we'd like to hang you for it.</p></div><p>I think a big part of the reason is accountability. Let it be public of who declares what should be done and then suddenly everyone knows to what extent that such-n-such company feels the peoples rights should be eroded away. This leads to one hell of a boycott of that company that isn't just based on guesswork and "Well they are one of the company's involved and I feel they MIGHT be doing that, but no I have no true idea or proof". When you can state and prove what each and every member is doing then action becomes much more powerful and directed with much better focus. And that would scare them and cause many to want to walk away as has been suggested would happen if this ACTA went public.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell a trade treaty is secret .
From anyone... let alone the people of the countrys involved in the agreement.If you ca n't tell people what 's in it .
It 's most likely not a good thing and we 'd like to hang you for it.I think a big part of the reason is accountability .
Let it be public of who declares what should be done and then suddenly everyone knows to what extent that such-n-such company feels the peoples rights should be eroded away .
This leads to one hell of a boycott of that company that is n't just based on guesswork and " Well they are one of the company 's involved and I feel they MIGHT be doing that , but no I have no true idea or proof " .
When you can state and prove what each and every member is doing then action becomes much more powerful and directed with much better focus .
And that would scare them and cause many to want to walk away as has been suggested would happen if this ACTA went public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell a trade treaty is secret.
From anyone... let alone the people of the countrys involved in the agreement.If you can't tell people what's in it.
It's most likely not a good thing and we'd like to hang you for it.I think a big part of the reason is accountability.
Let it be public of who declares what should be done and then suddenly everyone knows to what extent that such-n-such company feels the peoples rights should be eroded away.
This leads to one hell of a boycott of that company that isn't just based on guesswork and "Well they are one of the company's involved and I feel they MIGHT be doing that, but no I have no true idea or proof".
When you can state and prove what each and every member is doing then action becomes much more powerful and directed with much better focus.
And that would scare them and cause many to want to walk away as has been suggested would happen if this ACTA went public.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788906</id>
	<title>Re: Avoid Snake Bites</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263639420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the reason why "commercial" copying is considered so "bad" by those that have IP isn't that someone else is making money off their work. They don't care about that. The reason they consider it bad is that it allows widespread distribution of the counterfeit product, thus seriously impacting their sales. "Old school" private copying worked a bit like this: Someone bought a product and created a copy for their friends (which, btw, is still legal in some countries). Sure, they created a handful of copies, maybe three, maybe ten, but at least 1 out of 10 CDs in circulation were bought.</p><p>When internet and MP3s, and later P2P networks, became easily accessible and mainstream, that ratio slided dramatically. To the point where it is now on par with commercial copying when it comes to the ratio between copies sold and copies made. Sure, nobody makes a dime with all those copies, but that's not what the MAFIAA is concerned about. It's not the money someone else might make, it's the money they don't make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the reason why " commercial " copying is considered so " bad " by those that have IP is n't that someone else is making money off their work .
They do n't care about that .
The reason they consider it bad is that it allows widespread distribution of the counterfeit product , thus seriously impacting their sales .
" Old school " private copying worked a bit like this : Someone bought a product and created a copy for their friends ( which , btw , is still legal in some countries ) .
Sure , they created a handful of copies , maybe three , maybe ten , but at least 1 out of 10 CDs in circulation were bought.When internet and MP3s , and later P2P networks , became easily accessible and mainstream , that ratio slided dramatically .
To the point where it is now on par with commercial copying when it comes to the ratio between copies sold and copies made .
Sure , nobody makes a dime with all those copies , but that 's not what the MAFIAA is concerned about .
It 's not the money someone else might make , it 's the money they do n't make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the reason why "commercial" copying is considered so "bad" by those that have IP isn't that someone else is making money off their work.
They don't care about that.
The reason they consider it bad is that it allows widespread distribution of the counterfeit product, thus seriously impacting their sales.
"Old school" private copying worked a bit like this: Someone bought a product and created a copy for their friends (which, btw, is still legal in some countries).
Sure, they created a handful of copies, maybe three, maybe ten, but at least 1 out of 10 CDs in circulation were bought.When internet and MP3s, and later P2P networks, became easily accessible and mainstream, that ratio slided dramatically.
To the point where it is now on par with commercial copying when it comes to the ratio between copies sold and copies made.
Sure, nobody makes a dime with all those copies, but that's not what the MAFIAA is concerned about.
It's not the money someone else might make, it's the money they don't make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786286</id>
	<title>What ACTA Proponents Really Want</title>
	<author>KwKSilver</author>
	<datestamp>1263563220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>they will try other approaches to take away freedoms that we should all have and cherish</p></div></blockquote><p>
I think you've hit the nail of the head.  To see what they really want, 1) download<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) and print a copy of your nation's Constitution and/or Bill of Rights.  Then run it through a paper shredder. That's what they seem to want for starters. 2) Next get a REAAAAALLY BIG jar of petroleum jelly and a telephone pole<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... bend waaaay over....  3) Finally, send the RIAA and MPAA an extra copy of all your credit cards and tell them to charge whatever they want.  Beyond that it probably gets ugly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they will try other approaches to take away freedoms that we should all have and cherish I think you 've hit the nail of the head .
To see what they really want , 1 ) download ; - ) and print a copy of your nation 's Constitution and/or Bill of Rights .
Then run it through a paper shredder .
That 's what they seem to want for starters .
2 ) Next get a REAAAAALLY BIG jar of petroleum jelly and a telephone pole ... bend waaaay over.... 3 ) Finally , send the RIAA and MPAA an extra copy of all your credit cards and tell them to charge whatever they want .
Beyond that it probably gets ugly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they will try other approaches to take away freedoms that we should all have and cherish
I think you've hit the nail of the head.
To see what they really want, 1) download ;-) and print a copy of your nation's Constitution and/or Bill of Rights.
Then run it through a paper shredder.
That's what they seem to want for starters.
2) Next get a REAAAAALLY BIG jar of petroleum jelly and a telephone pole ... bend waaaay over....  3) Finally, send the RIAA and MPAA an extra copy of all your credit cards and tell them to charge whatever they want.
Beyond that it probably gets ugly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787392</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263572820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from dirty tricks, there are some reasons negotiations go on behind closed doors rather than in public.  Among them is face saving for whatever party gives in and avoiding the ire of whatever party is most hurt by a trade off.  For instance, suppose we have negotiations between two countries 1 and 2, over four items, A, B, C, and D.  Suppose further that country 1 can produce A and B more efficiently and country 2 can produce C and D more efficiently. Suppose both currently impose import quotas on all four items.  The quotas are meaningless for items where the country has an advantage, but prop up the industries producing the items where they are at a disadvantage.  In the process of negotiation, 1 may offer to raise the quota by 10\% on C in exchange for a 10\% raise by 2 on B.  That may be too damaging to 2's domestic B industry, so they counter with 7\% B and 3\% A.  If this were made public, those producing A would be furious at 2 for sacrificing them instead of B, similarly, consumers of B would be irate that they got less of a discount than they could have.  Instead, when the final announcement is made, both groups are happy, since they made out better than those producing B and consuming A respectively.</p><p>If you want a less theoretical example, look at labor negotiations that become public.  Both sides tend to dig in because their constituents will grill them for caving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from dirty tricks , there are some reasons negotiations go on behind closed doors rather than in public .
Among them is face saving for whatever party gives in and avoiding the ire of whatever party is most hurt by a trade off .
For instance , suppose we have negotiations between two countries 1 and 2 , over four items , A , B , C , and D. Suppose further that country 1 can produce A and B more efficiently and country 2 can produce C and D more efficiently .
Suppose both currently impose import quotas on all four items .
The quotas are meaningless for items where the country has an advantage , but prop up the industries producing the items where they are at a disadvantage .
In the process of negotiation , 1 may offer to raise the quota by 10 \ % on C in exchange for a 10 \ % raise by 2 on B. That may be too damaging to 2 's domestic B industry , so they counter with 7 \ % B and 3 \ % A. If this were made public , those producing A would be furious at 2 for sacrificing them instead of B , similarly , consumers of B would be irate that they got less of a discount than they could have .
Instead , when the final announcement is made , both groups are happy , since they made out better than those producing B and consuming A respectively.If you want a less theoretical example , look at labor negotiations that become public .
Both sides tend to dig in because their constituents will grill them for caving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from dirty tricks, there are some reasons negotiations go on behind closed doors rather than in public.
Among them is face saving for whatever party gives in and avoiding the ire of whatever party is most hurt by a trade off.
For instance, suppose we have negotiations between two countries 1 and 2, over four items, A, B, C, and D.  Suppose further that country 1 can produce A and B more efficiently and country 2 can produce C and D more efficiently.
Suppose both currently impose import quotas on all four items.
The quotas are meaningless for items where the country has an advantage, but prop up the industries producing the items where they are at a disadvantage.
In the process of negotiation, 1 may offer to raise the quota by 10\% on C in exchange for a 10\% raise by 2 on B.  That may be too damaging to 2's domestic B industry, so they counter with 7\% B and 3\% A.  If this were made public, those producing A would be furious at 2 for sacrificing them instead of B, similarly, consumers of B would be irate that they got less of a discount than they could have.
Instead, when the final announcement is made, both groups are happy, since they made out better than those producing B and consuming A respectively.If you want a less theoretical example, look at labor negotiations that become public.
Both sides tend to dig in because their constituents will grill them for caving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788932</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263639780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you <i>want</i> to write a book? A lot of great autors wrote not because they wanted to sell but because they had the drive to write and pour their heart into the lines. A lot of literature we consider classics now were written at a time when they could not have been printed due to censorship laws. Especially in the European literature you have a lot of works that did not become popular until long after the writer's death because they could not be printed earlier. And a lot of the classic plays were written during a time when getting them "approved" by the censorship board meant that you could not sensibly assume that you could make a penny from them because your chance to be dead by the time they get through was pretty high. And the hassle alone meant that it would have been much more profitable for you to simply write what the powerful wanted to hear (and yes, some autors opted for that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... guess what, they're forgotten today).</p><p>When did we become so shallow to assume that everything, especially something considered "art", has to be commercially viable to be done at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you want to write a book ?
A lot of great autors wrote not because they wanted to sell but because they had the drive to write and pour their heart into the lines .
A lot of literature we consider classics now were written at a time when they could not have been printed due to censorship laws .
Especially in the European literature you have a lot of works that did not become popular until long after the writer 's death because they could not be printed earlier .
And a lot of the classic plays were written during a time when getting them " approved " by the censorship board meant that you could not sensibly assume that you could make a penny from them because your chance to be dead by the time they get through was pretty high .
And the hassle alone meant that it would have been much more profitable for you to simply write what the powerful wanted to hear ( and yes , some autors opted for that ... guess what , they 're forgotten today ) .When did we become so shallow to assume that everything , especially something considered " art " , has to be commercially viable to be done at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you want to write a book?
A lot of great autors wrote not because they wanted to sell but because they had the drive to write and pour their heart into the lines.
A lot of literature we consider classics now were written at a time when they could not have been printed due to censorship laws.
Especially in the European literature you have a lot of works that did not become popular until long after the writer's death because they could not be printed earlier.
And a lot of the classic plays were written during a time when getting them "approved" by the censorship board meant that you could not sensibly assume that you could make a penny from them because your chance to be dead by the time they get through was pretty high.
And the hassle alone meant that it would have been much more profitable for you to simply write what the powerful wanted to hear (and yes, some autors opted for that ... guess what, they're forgotten today).When did we become so shallow to assume that everything, especially something considered "art", has to be commercially viable to be done at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785460</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1263557580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.</p></div><p>No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.</p></div><p>So you would be against replicators, then? Kindly hand in your geek card to security as you leave.</p><p>Okay. seriously: I know that example is a little absurd, but it's useful inasmuch as it casts the whole debate in a new light. If nourishment were universally replicable, would we not consider this a good thing? Why should intellectual nourishment be any different?</p><p>I say this as a writer, photographer and software developer, by the way. So yes, I do have some skin in this game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.No , this is like telling drinkers that they can not use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.So you would be against replicators , then ?
Kindly hand in your geek card to security as you leave.Okay .
seriously : I know that example is a little absurd , but it 's useful inasmuch as it casts the whole debate in a new light .
If nourishment were universally replicable , would we not consider this a good thing ?
Why should intellectual nourishment be any different ? I say this as a writer , photographer and software developer , by the way .
So yes , I do have some skin in this game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.So you would be against replicators, then?
Kindly hand in your geek card to security as you leave.Okay.
seriously: I know that example is a little absurd, but it's useful inasmuch as it casts the whole debate in a new light.
If nourishment were universally replicable, would we not consider this a good thing?
Why should intellectual nourishment be any different?I say this as a writer, photographer and software developer, by the way.
So yes, I do have some skin in this game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785438</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1263557520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?</i> <br> <br>
Because it won't.
<br> <br>
<i>I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop.</i> <br> <br>
Alas, those who can't write popular enough books will have to make a living doing something else but that's no different from the current situation.  <br> <br>
The biggest pirates I know are also the biggest consumers of legitimate material.  You can make a profit even with rampant piracy.  Maybe it's not as easy as it was.  Why should that matter?  The point of copyright is to make it possible to make a living by being creative.  Not to make it absolutely certain.  It never has done and it never will.  Technology sometimes makes it easier and sometimes makes it harder, as does society.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet ?
Because it wo n't .
I ca n't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop .
Alas , those who ca n't write popular enough books will have to make a living doing something else but that 's no different from the current situation .
The biggest pirates I know are also the biggest consumers of legitimate material .
You can make a profit even with rampant piracy .
Maybe it 's not as easy as it was .
Why should that matter ?
The point of copyright is to make it possible to make a living by being creative .
Not to make it absolutely certain .
It never has done and it never will .
Technology sometimes makes it easier and sometimes makes it harder , as does society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet?
Because it won't.
I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop.
Alas, those who can't write popular enough books will have to make a living doing something else but that's no different from the current situation.
The biggest pirates I know are also the biggest consumers of legitimate material.
You can make a profit even with rampant piracy.
Maybe it's not as easy as it was.
Why should that matter?
The point of copyright is to make it possible to make a living by being creative.
Not to make it absolutely certain.
It never has done and it never will.
Technology sometimes makes it easier and sometimes makes it harder, as does society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30789108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30792604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30791820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30789330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30790334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_208219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_208219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30791820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_208219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_208219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_208219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30790334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785210
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30789330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785920
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30792604
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_208219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30786074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30789108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30787690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_208219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30784962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30785632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_208219.30788200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
