<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_22_021257</id>
	<title>Vimeo Also Introduces HTML5 Video Player</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264182180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"Following in <a href="http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/01/introducing-youtube-html5-supported.html">YouTube's footsteps</a>, Vimeo has now introduced its own beta <a href="http://vimeo.com/blog:268">HTML5 video player</a>, and like YouTube, it uses H.264 and requires Safari, Chrome, or ChromeFrame.  The new player doesn't suffer the rebuffering problems of the Flash version when clicking around in the video's timeline, and it also loads faster.  HTML5 could finally be gaining some real momentum."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " Following in YouTube 's footsteps , Vimeo has now introduced its own beta HTML5 video player , and like YouTube , it uses H.264 and requires Safari , Chrome , or ChromeFrame .
The new player does n't suffer the rebuffering problems of the Flash version when clicking around in the video 's timeline , and it also loads faster .
HTML5 could finally be gaining some real momentum .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "Following in YouTube's footsteps, Vimeo has now introduced its own beta HTML5 video player, and like YouTube, it uses H.264 and requires Safari, Chrome, or ChromeFrame.
The new player doesn't suffer the rebuffering problems of the Flash version when clicking around in the video's timeline, and it also loads faster.
HTML5 could finally be gaining some real momentum.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860356</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264180440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be legal for Mozilla to distribute Firefox if it did that.  It would not be legal for anyone else to do so.</p><p>For example, if you put a copy of Firefox on your USB keychain and went over to your friend's house and installed it there (from that keychain) without paying the H.264 licensing fees required, you could be sued for damages.  Not much in the way of damages, clearly, but you would in fact be liable for them.</p><p>Of course if you happened to be, say, Ubuntu, you would have to pay a pretty hefty fee (or be liable for significant damages) if you shipped Firefox as part of your distribution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be legal for Mozilla to distribute Firefox if it did that .
It would not be legal for anyone else to do so.For example , if you put a copy of Firefox on your USB keychain and went over to your friend 's house and installed it there ( from that keychain ) without paying the H.264 licensing fees required , you could be sued for damages .
Not much in the way of damages , clearly , but you would in fact be liable for them.Of course if you happened to be , say , Ubuntu , you would have to pay a pretty hefty fee ( or be liable for significant damages ) if you shipped Firefox as part of your distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be legal for Mozilla to distribute Firefox if it did that.
It would not be legal for anyone else to do so.For example, if you put a copy of Firefox on your USB keychain and went over to your friend's house and installed it there (from that keychain) without paying the H.264 licensing fees required, you could be sued for damages.
Not much in the way of damages, clearly, but you would in fact be liable for them.Of course if you happened to be, say, Ubuntu, you would have to pay a pretty hefty fee (or be liable for significant damages) if you shipped Firefox as part of your distribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857506</id>
	<title>Re:This may not be an apt analogy, but</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1264154940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have always heard that the consortium pushing Betamax at the time was actively preventing porn to be released on Betamax.
</p><p>In case of Beta/VHS and HDDVD/Bluray I have no idea what would stop a publisher (porn or mainstream) from shipping both formats, especially if they have a reasonably large sales volume. This particularly looking at the Beta/VHS case where there is nothing special like menus or so to be added. It's plain video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always heard that the consortium pushing Betamax at the time was actively preventing porn to be released on Betamax .
In case of Beta/VHS and HDDVD/Bluray I have no idea what would stop a publisher ( porn or mainstream ) from shipping both formats , especially if they have a reasonably large sales volume .
This particularly looking at the Beta/VHS case where there is nothing special like menus or so to be added .
It 's plain video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always heard that the consortium pushing Betamax at the time was actively preventing porn to be released on Betamax.
In case of Beta/VHS and HDDVD/Bluray I have no idea what would stop a publisher (porn or mainstream) from shipping both formats, especially if they have a reasonably large sales volume.
This particularly looking at the Beta/VHS case where there is nothing special like menus or so to be added.
It's plain video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30866308</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1264173420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only creation of GIF's was covered by the patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only creation of GIF 's was covered by the patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only creation of GIF's was covered by the patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856980</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent.</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1264103520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=422540" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=422540</a> [mozilla.org]<br>They are working on a Gstreamer backend for the video tag, and that will provide support for h264. From skimming the comments, it seems that there is a working but slow patch for 3.5, which is yet to be updated for 3.6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 422540 [ mozilla.org ] They are working on a Gstreamer backend for the video tag , and that will provide support for h264 .
From skimming the comments , it seems that there is a working but slow patch for 3.5 , which is yet to be updated for 3.6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=422540 [mozilla.org]They are working on a Gstreamer backend for the video tag, and that will provide support for h264.
From skimming the comments, it seems that there is a working but slow patch for 3.5, which is yet to be updated for 3.6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860996</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1264183560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mathematical algorithm patents are not recognized in most countries outside the US,...</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathematical algorithm patents are not recognized in most countries outside the US,... ...yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathematical algorithm patents are not recognized in most countries outside the US,... ...yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856796</id>
	<title>Branding over functionality...</title>
	<author>RalphBNumbers</author>
	<datestamp>1264101000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that both Youtube and Vimeo have both chosen to use their own custom controls, and disable the default controls native to the user's browser.</p><p>That wouldn't be such a big deal, except for the fact that full screen mode can currently only be entered using those default controls (making full screen mode available via a scripting api is considered a security risk, and thus discouraged by the HTML5 spec).  So they're sacrificing that functionality at the alter of branding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that both Youtube and Vimeo have both chosen to use their own custom controls , and disable the default controls native to the user 's browser.That would n't be such a big deal , except for the fact that full screen mode can currently only be entered using those default controls ( making full screen mode available via a scripting api is considered a security risk , and thus discouraged by the HTML5 spec ) .
So they 're sacrificing that functionality at the alter of branding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that both Youtube and Vimeo have both chosen to use their own custom controls, and disable the default controls native to the user's browser.That wouldn't be such a big deal, except for the fact that full screen mode can currently only be entered using those default controls (making full screen mode available via a scripting api is considered a security risk, and thus discouraged by the HTML5 spec).
So they're sacrificing that functionality at the alter of branding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856946</id>
	<title>Re:Branding over functionality...</title>
	<author>Endymion</author>
	<datestamp>1264103040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One nice thing about HTML5 over flash: it's <i>much</i> easier to fix such things in greasmonkey or similar tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One nice thing about HTML5 over flash : it 's much easier to fix such things in greasmonkey or similar tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One nice thing about HTML5 over flash: it's much easier to fix such things in greasmonkey or similar tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858532</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1264169820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've not checked the situation but people are saying that Apple (IIRC) only have this tied up in the US (which seems unlikely as codecs are patent encumbered in EPC states too). Thus Firefox could mirror there previous workaround for PGP. Under export laws FF weren't allowed to distribute 128 bit (again IIRC) encryption algos - thus they offered 2 versions one for the US (with the algos) and one for the rest (without). It was a case of the user choosing which version they wanted. I recall downloading the proper (non-crippled) version to the UK without any problems even thought this meant that FF strictly contravened export/national security laws.</p><p>Mozilla may be a US corp but FF is not a US product. H.264 could be in a plugin distributed in a country without any patent restriction on it. No doubt a lawsuit on the basis of contributory infringement would arise but FF list all plugins available without making comment as to whether they are lawful in any jurisdiction - like a common carrier - and the outcome of a successful complaint would probably be bad for the plaintiff too.</p><p>On a side note: I really wish that the interoperability clause had been passed into law in the EPC (European Patent Convention).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not checked the situation but people are saying that Apple ( IIRC ) only have this tied up in the US ( which seems unlikely as codecs are patent encumbered in EPC states too ) .
Thus Firefox could mirror there previous workaround for PGP .
Under export laws FF were n't allowed to distribute 128 bit ( again IIRC ) encryption algos - thus they offered 2 versions one for the US ( with the algos ) and one for the rest ( without ) .
It was a case of the user choosing which version they wanted .
I recall downloading the proper ( non-crippled ) version to the UK without any problems even thought this meant that FF strictly contravened export/national security laws.Mozilla may be a US corp but FF is not a US product .
H.264 could be in a plugin distributed in a country without any patent restriction on it .
No doubt a lawsuit on the basis of contributory infringement would arise but FF list all plugins available without making comment as to whether they are lawful in any jurisdiction - like a common carrier - and the outcome of a successful complaint would probably be bad for the plaintiff too.On a side note : I really wish that the interoperability clause had been passed into law in the EPC ( European Patent Convention ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not checked the situation but people are saying that Apple (IIRC) only have this tied up in the US (which seems unlikely as codecs are patent encumbered in EPC states too).
Thus Firefox could mirror there previous workaround for PGP.
Under export laws FF weren't allowed to distribute 128 bit (again IIRC) encryption algos - thus they offered 2 versions one for the US (with the algos) and one for the rest (without).
It was a case of the user choosing which version they wanted.
I recall downloading the proper (non-crippled) version to the UK without any problems even thought this meant that FF strictly contravened export/national security laws.Mozilla may be a US corp but FF is not a US product.
H.264 could be in a plugin distributed in a country without any patent restriction on it.
No doubt a lawsuit on the basis of contributory infringement would arise but FF list all plugins available without making comment as to whether they are lawful in any jurisdiction - like a common carrier - and the outcome of a successful complaint would probably be bad for the plaintiff too.On a side note: I really wish that the interoperability clause had been passed into law in the EPC (European Patent Convention).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30859992</id>
	<title>Re:This may not be an apt analogy, but</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1264178700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I hear *cough*, a lot of porn is still using WMV. Which is not nearly as limiting as the native support of Theora (yes it's Free, but my browser doesn't know that out of the box), but still excludes all Linux and Mac users that don't want to fight with irritating and semi-functional plugins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I hear * cough * , a lot of porn is still using WMV .
Which is not nearly as limiting as the native support of Theora ( yes it 's Free , but my browser does n't know that out of the box ) , but still excludes all Linux and Mac users that do n't want to fight with irritating and semi-functional plugins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I hear *cough*, a lot of porn is still using WMV.
Which is not nearly as limiting as the native support of Theora (yes it's Free, but my browser doesn't know that out of the box), but still excludes all Linux and Mac users that don't want to fight with irritating and semi-functional plugins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856808</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264101120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a big thing for me. I don't give a damn about their ideology or their patent concerns, if youtube choose h264 then h264 has won this mini format war, and firefox better swallow their pride and licence it.</p><p>If they don't, i'll end up on chrome for windows, and I already use Safari on mac because their mac UI team are atrocious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a big thing for me .
I do n't give a damn about their ideology or their patent concerns , if youtube choose h264 then h264 has won this mini format war , and firefox better swallow their pride and licence it.If they do n't , i 'll end up on chrome for windows , and I already use Safari on mac because their mac UI team are atrocious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a big thing for me.
I don't give a damn about their ideology or their patent concerns, if youtube choose h264 then h264 has won this mini format war, and firefox better swallow their pride and licence it.If they don't, i'll end up on chrome for windows, and I already use Safari on mac because their mac UI team are atrocious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860700</id>
	<title>h.264 patent expiration?</title>
	<author>OlRickDawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264182120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When does the h.264 patent expire? I've been doing google searches, but haven't had any luck in finding the dates. My google search mojo must be weak today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When does the h.264 patent expire ?
I 've been doing google searches , but have n't had any luck in finding the dates .
My google search mojo must be weak today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When does the h.264 patent expire?
I've been doing google searches, but haven't had any luck in finding the dates.
My google search mojo must be weak today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857518</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>Andreas Mayer</author>
	<datestamp>1264155240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.</p></div><p>It is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Repeat after me: <b>H.264 is NOT FREE</b>, not by a long way. If Firefox included H.264 support then <b>Firefox would also NOT BE FREE</b>. It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.</p></div><p>They should just use the video framework provided by the OS.</p><p>But they don't want to. Because then they wouldn't get to push their 'free' (albeit inferior) OSS codec.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it 's somehow Mozilla 's fault that Firefox does n't support H.264.It is.Repeat after me : H.264 is NOT FREE , not by a long way .
If Firefox included H.264 support then Firefox would also NOT BE FREE .
It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.They should just use the video framework provided by the OS.But they do n't want to .
Because then they would n't get to push their 'free ' ( albeit inferior ) OSS codec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.It is.Repeat after me: H.264 is NOT FREE, not by a long way.
If Firefox included H.264 support then Firefox would also NOT BE FREE.
It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.They should just use the video framework provided by the OS.But they don't want to.
Because then they wouldn't get to push their 'free' (albeit inferior) OSS codec.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30865664</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1264167780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the way Mozilla approaches branding of modified version, Firefox is already "<b>NOT FREE</b>". Ask Debian folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the way Mozilla approaches branding of modified version , Firefox is already " NOT FREE " .
Ask Debian folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the way Mozilla approaches branding of modified version, Firefox is already "NOT FREE".
Ask Debian folks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30861366</id>
	<title>Re:Cost for Firefox H.264: $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>vitaflo</author>
	<datestamp>1264185240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Is it really worth it to spend 6\% of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec?"</i></p><p>I dunno, is it worth it to potentially lose a vast amount of your user base in the future if you don't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is it really worth it to spend 6 \ % of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec ?
" I dunno , is it worth it to potentially lose a vast amount of your user base in the future if you do n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is it really worth it to spend 6\% of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec?
"I dunno, is it worth it to potentially lose a vast amount of your user base in the future if you don't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857092</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264191540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and firefox better swallow their pride and licence it.</i></p><p>Why should they license it when an embeddable player is available on every OS with noticeable marketshare?</p><p>They just need to enable the HTML5 video tag to use that.  Oddly enough I couldn't find this bug at BMO with a quick search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and firefox better swallow their pride and licence it.Why should they license it when an embeddable player is available on every OS with noticeable marketshare ? They just need to enable the HTML5 video tag to use that .
Oddly enough I could n't find this bug at BMO with a quick search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and firefox better swallow their pride and licence it.Why should they license it when an embeddable player is available on every OS with noticeable marketshare?They just need to enable the HTML5 video tag to use that.
Oddly enough I couldn't find this bug at BMO with a quick search.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858288</id>
	<title>kaiser soze</title>
	<author>MoFoQ</author>
	<datestamp>1264166100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hmm...I'm testing out this vimeo html5 player and I'm looking at the source...I see calls using mootools 1.11 to a mootools class named "Kaiser Soze".....gotta love programmers with a sense of humor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hmm...I 'm testing out this vimeo html5 player and I 'm looking at the source...I see calls using mootools 1.11 to a mootools class named " Kaiser Soze " .....got ta love programmers with a sense of humor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hmm...I'm testing out this vimeo html5 player and I'm looking at the source...I see calls using mootools 1.11 to a mootools class named "Kaiser Soze".....gotta love programmers with a sense of humor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857046</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264190940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know who gives a damn about their ideology? The people who actually write Firefox. You know who gives a damn about patent concerns? The rights holders, and the people who actually write Firefox.<br>If you don't like how the Fireox devs ideology has affected Firefox in this manner (i.e. no h264 licensing) then don't use it, but don't whine about the ideology that made Firefox possible in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know who gives a damn about their ideology ?
The people who actually write Firefox .
You know who gives a damn about patent concerns ?
The rights holders , and the people who actually write Firefox.If you do n't like how the Fireox devs ideology has affected Firefox in this manner ( i.e .
no h264 licensing ) then do n't use it , but do n't whine about the ideology that made Firefox possible in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know who gives a damn about their ideology?
The people who actually write Firefox.
You know who gives a damn about patent concerns?
The rights holders, and the people who actually write Firefox.If you don't like how the Fireox devs ideology has affected Firefox in this manner (i.e.
no h264 licensing) then don't use it, but don't whine about the ideology that made Firefox possible in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856870</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1264101900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easy to speak when it's not your ass on the line for patent infringement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy to speak when it 's not your ass on the line for patent infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy to speak when it's not your ass on the line for patent infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857252</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1264193640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree 100\%. Mathematical algorithm patents are not recognized in most countries outside the US, so make an international Firefox version that only visitors who claim to be outside the US can download.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % .
Mathematical algorithm patents are not recognized in most countries outside the US , so make an international Firefox version that only visitors who claim to be outside the US can download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\%.
Mathematical algorithm patents are not recognized in most countries outside the US, so make an international Firefox version that only visitors who claim to be outside the US can download.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858474</id>
	<title>Re:Branding over functionality...</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1264169100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] full screen mode can currently only be entered using those default controls (making full screen mode available via a scripting api is considered a security risk, and thus discouraged by the HTML5 spec).  So they're sacrificing that functionality at the alter of branding.</p></div><p>If the browsers don't let the user override the branding then they're broken. I should be able to choose to use the native controls for all videos if I wish - just as I can choose to display all websites as green-on-black in a console font if I want to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] full screen mode can currently only be entered using those default controls ( making full screen mode available via a scripting api is considered a security risk , and thus discouraged by the HTML5 spec ) .
So they 're sacrificing that functionality at the alter of branding.If the browsers do n't let the user override the branding then they 're broken .
I should be able to choose to use the native controls for all videos if I wish - just as I can choose to display all websites as green-on-black in a console font if I want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] full screen mode can currently only be entered using those default controls (making full screen mode available via a scripting api is considered a security risk, and thus discouraged by the HTML5 spec).
So they're sacrificing that functionality at the alter of branding.If the browsers don't let the user override the branding then they're broken.
I should be able to choose to use the native controls for all videos if I wish - just as I can choose to display all websites as green-on-black in a console font if I want to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858328</id>
	<title>Re:Cost for Firefox H.264: $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1264166700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla would have to add a closed-source component to Firefox for it to be able to work.</p></div><p>Or they could hook into each OS's native codec libraries -- IIRC windows 7 supports h264 out of the box, and most linux distros have a gstreamer-x264 or whatever package easily available ("easy" as in "will prompt to be installed the first time it's required", in ubuntu's case at least)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla would have to add a closed-source component to Firefox for it to be able to work.Or they could hook into each OS 's native codec libraries -- IIRC windows 7 supports h264 out of the box , and most linux distros have a gstreamer-x264 or whatever package easily available ( " easy " as in " will prompt to be installed the first time it 's required " , in ubuntu 's case at least )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla would have to add a closed-source component to Firefox for it to be able to work.Or they could hook into each OS's native codec libraries -- IIRC windows 7 supports h264 out of the box, and most linux distros have a gstreamer-x264 or whatever package easily available ("easy" as in "will prompt to be installed the first time it's required", in ubuntu's case at least)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856818</id>
	<title>I care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264101300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, really, I do care. Safari and Chrome, that covers both Mac and Windows users fully, right? That's like 99.99\% of the market, right?</p><p>You can't be serious that those browsers put together include only about 10\% of users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , really , I do care .
Safari and Chrome , that covers both Mac and Windows users fully , right ?
That 's like 99.99 \ % of the market , right ? You ca n't be serious that those browsers put together include only about 10 \ % of users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, really, I do care.
Safari and Chrome, that covers both Mac and Windows users fully, right?
That's like 99.99\% of the market, right?You can't be serious that those browsers put together include only about 10\% of users?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856930</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>Endymion</author>
	<datestamp>1264102860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I suggest they either:<br>
&nbsp; 1) Make it a non-USA release, similar to PGP/PGPi in the past. This would be if they wanted to take a stand, and make lots of activist-style press releases on the subject. It would also probably be more effective than trying to talk everybody into using Theora.<br>
&nbsp; 2) Externalize the issue, by using an external program instead. That way they aren't decoding any video, and are totally safe from patent issues.</p><p>Option #2 is recommended, as a pragmatic decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I suggest they either :   1 ) Make it a non-USA release , similar to PGP/PGPi in the past .
This would be if they wanted to take a stand , and make lots of activist-style press releases on the subject .
It would also probably be more effective than trying to talk everybody into using Theora .
  2 ) Externalize the issue , by using an external program instead .
That way they are n't decoding any video , and are totally safe from patent issues.Option # 2 is recommended , as a pragmatic decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I suggest they either:
  1) Make it a non-USA release, similar to PGP/PGPi in the past.
This would be if they wanted to take a stand, and make lots of activist-style press releases on the subject.
It would also probably be more effective than trying to talk everybody into using Theora.
  2) Externalize the issue, by using an external program instead.
That way they aren't decoding any video, and are totally safe from patent issues.Option #2 is recommended, as a pragmatic decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857946</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264161900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.</p></div><p>
Mozilla supported GIF before its patent expired.<br>
<br>
Was Mozilla not free back then? Really?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it 's somehow Mozilla 's fault that Firefox does n't support H.264 .
Mozilla supported GIF before its patent expired .
Was Mozilla not free back then ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.
Mozilla supported GIF before its patent expired.
Was Mozilla not free back then?
Really?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854</id>
	<title>This may not be an apt analogy, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264101660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if web video formats follow the precedents of home video, porn will be the deciding factor. See Betamax v. VHS, and Bluray v. HD DVD. As goes porn so goes mainstream content providers, right? I should probably do some research into the delivery method of choice in online stag films, but it's just so tedious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if web video formats follow the precedents of home video , porn will be the deciding factor .
See Betamax v. VHS , and Bluray v. HD DVD .
As goes porn so goes mainstream content providers , right ?
I should probably do some research into the delivery method of choice in online stag films , but it 's just so tedious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if web video formats follow the precedents of home video, porn will be the deciding factor.
See Betamax v. VHS, and Bluray v. HD DVD.
As goes porn so goes mainstream content providers, right?
I should probably do some research into the delivery method of choice in online stag films, but it's just so tedious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857338</id>
	<title>Doesn't work in Safari for iPhone</title>
	<author>ciryon</author>
	<datestamp>1264151820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just tried browsing the full site on iPhone and switched to HTML5 mode. Doesn't seem to work, just displays a crossed over play-icon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just tried browsing the full site on iPhone and switched to HTML5 mode .
Does n't seem to work , just displays a crossed over play-icon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just tried browsing the full site on iPhone and switched to HTML5 mode.
Doesn't seem to work, just displays a crossed over play-icon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</id>
	<title>Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264100520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the sound of you getting passed by.</p><p>I'm a total GNU fanboy most days, and generally agree with the moral move they are trying to make with OOG formats, but in this case it is a losing strategy. H264 video has gotten a momentum that is hard to break, similar to how MP3 got a momentum in the past. It has nothing to do with technical features, morals, licensing, or other commonly-argued things. Instead, it's about a critical-mass of popularity. H264 video the new pop thing, even in cases where people don't even know terms like "H264".</p><p>By not finding a way to make video work properly, Firefox is saying they want to be <i>left behind</i>. No, I highly doubt people like google or others will re-encode video into Theora. They will make the business decision that not only is it a lot of work, it's <i>not necessary</i> as firefox is supported with Flash.</p><p>If the Firefox people want to make a good moral stand with this issue, they should pull something similar to the crypto situation and make an "international" version. That version could serve as an embarrassment to the restrictive patent system, and a useful political talking point. At a minimum, though, they should simply remove all codec processing form the project, leaving that particular can of worms to an external project (gstreamer? embed mplayer/vlc/other? some new project created specifically for this purpose?).</p><p>I love firefox. I really do. So <i>please</i> don't choose to be non-player in the video arena!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the sound of you getting passed by.I 'm a total GNU fanboy most days , and generally agree with the moral move they are trying to make with OOG formats , but in this case it is a losing strategy .
H264 video has gotten a momentum that is hard to break , similar to how MP3 got a momentum in the past .
It has nothing to do with technical features , morals , licensing , or other commonly-argued things .
Instead , it 's about a critical-mass of popularity .
H264 video the new pop thing , even in cases where people do n't even know terms like " H264 " .By not finding a way to make video work properly , Firefox is saying they want to be left behind .
No , I highly doubt people like google or others will re-encode video into Theora .
They will make the business decision that not only is it a lot of work , it 's not necessary as firefox is supported with Flash.If the Firefox people want to make a good moral stand with this issue , they should pull something similar to the crypto situation and make an " international " version .
That version could serve as an embarrassment to the restrictive patent system , and a useful political talking point .
At a minimum , though , they should simply remove all codec processing form the project , leaving that particular can of worms to an external project ( gstreamer ?
embed mplayer/vlc/other ?
some new project created specifically for this purpose ?
) .I love firefox .
I really do .
So please do n't choose to be non-player in the video arena !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the sound of you getting passed by.I'm a total GNU fanboy most days, and generally agree with the moral move they are trying to make with OOG formats, but in this case it is a losing strategy.
H264 video has gotten a momentum that is hard to break, similar to how MP3 got a momentum in the past.
It has nothing to do with technical features, morals, licensing, or other commonly-argued things.
Instead, it's about a critical-mass of popularity.
H264 video the new pop thing, even in cases where people don't even know terms like "H264".By not finding a way to make video work properly, Firefox is saying they want to be left behind.
No, I highly doubt people like google or others will re-encode video into Theora.
They will make the business decision that not only is it a lot of work, it's not necessary as firefox is supported with Flash.If the Firefox people want to make a good moral stand with this issue, they should pull something similar to the crypto situation and make an "international" version.
That version could serve as an embarrassment to the restrictive patent system, and a useful political talking point.
At a minimum, though, they should simply remove all codec processing form the project, leaving that particular can of worms to an external project (gstreamer?
embed mplayer/vlc/other?
some new project created specifically for this purpose?
).I love firefox.
I really do.
So please don't choose to be non-player in the video arena!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30859780</id>
	<title>Come on firefox!  Why not get hog tied?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264177680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on firefox, everyone else in the industry is leaping head over foot to get themselves hog tied with ridiculously expensive licenses for h264, so why not add a proprietary anchor to your open source boat?  So throw away any notion that open source software can be successful on its own, give up your only real reason to be different, and pick up a technology that a couple of your proprietary competitors are adopting!  Sure it kind of undermines the whole idea of open source, but who cares, h264 is the media format of the week!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on firefox , everyone else in the industry is leaping head over foot to get themselves hog tied with ridiculously expensive licenses for h264 , so why not add a proprietary anchor to your open source boat ?
So throw away any notion that open source software can be successful on its own , give up your only real reason to be different , and pick up a technology that a couple of your proprietary competitors are adopting !
Sure it kind of undermines the whole idea of open source , but who cares , h264 is the media format of the week !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on firefox, everyone else in the industry is leaping head over foot to get themselves hog tied with ridiculously expensive licenses for h264, so why not add a proprietary anchor to your open source boat?
So throw away any notion that open source software can be successful on its own, give up your only real reason to be different, and pick up a technology that a couple of your proprietary competitors are adopting!
Sure it kind of undermines the whole idea of open source, but who cares, h264 is the media format of the week!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857044</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264190880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>OOG formats</i>

<p>Uh oh, looks like <i>someone's</i> going to get their head broken with an open source CD...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OOG formats Uh oh , looks like someone 's going to get their head broken with an open source CD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OOG formats

Uh oh, looks like someone's going to get their head broken with an open source CD...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860284</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264180020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the subscription side of the licensing, you're correct.  The big wildcard is the "broadcast" side, also known as "put that one video on my blog".  It's free through the end of this year; after that we'll see what the licensing terms look like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the subscription side of the licensing , you 're correct .
The big wildcard is the " broadcast " side , also known as " put that one video on my blog " .
It 's free through the end of this year ; after that we 'll see what the licensing terms look like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the subscription side of the licensing, you're correct.
The big wildcard is the "broadcast" side, also known as "put that one video on my blog".
It's free through the end of this year; after that we'll see what the licensing terms look like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858916</id>
	<title>Re:Daily Motion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264173180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me see. You use Windows Vista and IE, learnt to programme with Visual Studio. You don't use Linux but think that Mono should be installed by default anyway. Your mates sent you a link to Youtube and ever since you have logged on every day to watch the featured video.</p><p>Just guessing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me see .
You use Windows Vista and IE , learnt to programme with Visual Studio .
You do n't use Linux but think that Mono should be installed by default anyway .
Your mates sent you a link to Youtube and ever since you have logged on every day to watch the featured video.Just guessing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me see.
You use Windows Vista and IE, learnt to programme with Visual Studio.
You don't use Linux but think that Mono should be installed by default anyway.
Your mates sent you a link to Youtube and ever since you have logged on every day to watch the featured video.Just guessing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860516</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1264181100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.</p></div><p>That's because it <em>is</em>.</p><p>Mozilla <em>doesn't have to</em> support H.264 themselves, they just have to "get out of the way".  They just have to enable the ability for plugins to add support for new codecs.  Pretty much every platform comes with some kind of H.264 implementation these days.  The plugins would appear very rapidly, if Firefox permitted it.</p><p>Do you prefer a world where YouTube asks some users to install an H.264 codec, or where it asks many users to install the Flash player?  Why is H.264 worse than Flash?</p><p>At one point Mozilla believed they had the leverage to <em>force</em> a codec other than H.264.  Maybe they still think so.  Hopefully, they'll get over it before too much damage is done to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it 's somehow Mozilla 's fault that Firefox does n't support H.264.That 's because it is.Mozilla does n't have to support H.264 themselves , they just have to " get out of the way " .
They just have to enable the ability for plugins to add support for new codecs .
Pretty much every platform comes with some kind of H.264 implementation these days .
The plugins would appear very rapidly , if Firefox permitted it.Do you prefer a world where YouTube asks some users to install an H.264 codec , or where it asks many users to install the Flash player ?
Why is H.264 worse than Flash ? At one point Mozilla believed they had the leverage to force a codec other than H.264 .
Maybe they still think so .
Hopefully , they 'll get over it before too much damage is done to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.That's because it is.Mozilla doesn't have to support H.264 themselves, they just have to "get out of the way".
They just have to enable the ability for plugins to add support for new codecs.
Pretty much every platform comes with some kind of H.264 implementation these days.
The plugins would appear very rapidly, if Firefox permitted it.Do you prefer a world where YouTube asks some users to install an H.264 codec, or where it asks many users to install the Flash player?
Why is H.264 worse than Flash?At one point Mozilla believed they had the leverage to force a codec other than H.264.
Maybe they still think so.
Hopefully, they'll get over it before too much damage is done to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30863466</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1264154700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ideals other than GNU: <br>
Unix: Do 1 thing &amp; do it well<br>
When I found the codec would be *in* Firefox rather than OS libraries, that was trouble. Firefox broke sensible rules right there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideals other than GNU : Unix : Do 1 thing &amp; do it well When I found the codec would be * in * Firefox rather than OS libraries , that was trouble .
Firefox broke sensible rules right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideals other than GNU: 
Unix: Do 1 thing &amp; do it well
When I found the codec would be *in* Firefox rather than OS libraries, that was trouble.
Firefox broke sensible rules right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30864432</id>
	<title>Re:Not HTML5</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1264159320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Too bad HTML5 specifies Ogg Theora [...]</p></div><p>
No it doesn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad HTML5 specifies Ogg Theora [ ... ] No it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad HTML5 specifies Ogg Theora [...]
No it doesn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30862786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857514</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1264155180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Repeat after me: H.264 is NOT FREE, not by a long way.</p></div><p>So, they could implement the format and disable it by default. If users want to use it, or if they are allowed in their country, they have to enable it. Just show some<br>popup when some site wants to use HTML5, and users will click "OK", you can bet on that.</p><p>Something similar is done by the freetype project: <a href="http://freetype.sourceforge.net/patents.html" title="sourceforge.net">http://freetype.sourceforge.net/patents.html</a> [sourceforge.net], although in that case the patent can be circumvented by setting a compile-time switch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Repeat after me : H.264 is NOT FREE , not by a long way.So , they could implement the format and disable it by default .
If users want to use it , or if they are allowed in their country , they have to enable it .
Just show somepopup when some site wants to use HTML5 , and users will click " OK " , you can bet on that.Something similar is done by the freetype project : http : //freetype.sourceforge.net/patents.html [ sourceforge.net ] , although in that case the patent can be circumvented by setting a compile-time switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Repeat after me: H.264 is NOT FREE, not by a long way.So, they could implement the format and disable it by default.
If users want to use it, or if they are allowed in their country, they have to enable it.
Just show somepopup when some site wants to use HTML5, and users will click "OK", you can bet on that.Something similar is done by the freetype project: http://freetype.sourceforge.net/patents.html [sourceforge.net], although in that case the patent can be circumvented by setting a compile-time switch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857980</id>
	<title>patenting how to make stuff is ok</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264162260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>patenting how to manipulate bits is not ok</p><p>the free exchange of ideas is the only thing underpinning any sense of philosophical integrity in modern liberal democracy. besides, you basically lie when you say its expensive to develop this stuff. a university professional could do this, and by publishing it, for free (in an ideal world) he cements his academic credentials, which is the only reward anyone deserves for the advancement of ideas</p><p>capitalizing on those ideas is a secondary game that does not overlap, and should not overlap (in an ideal world) with the primary game of development of better ideas</p><p>ideas should not be patented</p><p>manipulating bits is simply an idea, not a marketable product</p><p>YOU'RE doing it wrong</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>patenting how to manipulate bits is not okthe free exchange of ideas is the only thing underpinning any sense of philosophical integrity in modern liberal democracy .
besides , you basically lie when you say its expensive to develop this stuff .
a university professional could do this , and by publishing it , for free ( in an ideal world ) he cements his academic credentials , which is the only reward anyone deserves for the advancement of ideascapitalizing on those ideas is a secondary game that does not overlap , and should not overlap ( in an ideal world ) with the primary game of development of better ideasideas should not be patentedmanipulating bits is simply an idea , not a marketable productYOU 'RE doing it wrong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>patenting how to manipulate bits is not okthe free exchange of ideas is the only thing underpinning any sense of philosophical integrity in modern liberal democracy.
besides, you basically lie when you say its expensive to develop this stuff.
a university professional could do this, and by publishing it, for free (in an ideal world) he cements his academic credentials, which is the only reward anyone deserves for the advancement of ideascapitalizing on those ideas is a secondary game that does not overlap, and should not overlap (in an ideal world) with the primary game of development of better ideasideas should not be patentedmanipulating bits is simply an idea, not a marketable productYOU'RE doing it wrong</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860680</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264181940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux failed.<br>Ogg failed.<br>GIMP failed.<br>Why are you free-tards so hell bent on having Firefox fail too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux failed.Ogg failed.GIMP failed.Why are you free-tards so hell bent on having Firefox fail too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux failed.Ogg failed.GIMP failed.Why are you free-tards so hell bent on having Firefox fail too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856988</id>
	<title>All hail HTML5 what a crock of shit</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264103640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have the tried the latest versions of chrome ( for windows since the linux version is barely functional) and Firefox and they don't support HTML 5 correctly yet.
</p><p>Come talk to me when the big committee in the sky pulls their collective heads out of their asses and finalizes HTML 5 and fixes the problems that have been there since HTML 0.01</p><p>This whole Video this and video that is a the tail wagging the dog. If you want to watch movies buy a DVD player subscribe to a cable service that gives you video on demand instead of pushing a bad specficiation out the door before it's finished and waisting a whole but load of programmer time making the <b>incomplete</b> spec of HTML 5 work in a half-assed way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the tried the latest versions of chrome ( for windows since the linux version is barely functional ) and Firefox and they do n't support HTML 5 correctly yet .
Come talk to me when the big committee in the sky pulls their collective heads out of their asses and finalizes HTML 5 and fixes the problems that have been there since HTML 0.01This whole Video this and video that is a the tail wagging the dog .
If you want to watch movies buy a DVD player subscribe to a cable service that gives you video on demand instead of pushing a bad specficiation out the door before it 's finished and waisting a whole but load of programmer time making the incomplete spec of HTML 5 work in a half-assed way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the tried the latest versions of chrome ( for windows since the linux version is barely functional) and Firefox and they don't support HTML 5 correctly yet.
Come talk to me when the big committee in the sky pulls their collective heads out of their asses and finalizes HTML 5 and fixes the problems that have been there since HTML 0.01This whole Video this and video that is a the tail wagging the dog.
If you want to watch movies buy a DVD player subscribe to a cable service that gives you video on demand instead of pushing a bad specficiation out the door before it's finished and waisting a whole but load of programmer time making the incomplete spec of HTML 5 work in a half-assed way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858794</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264172400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you can't, Your Doing It Wrong.</p></div><p>You're Spelling It Wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you ca n't , Your Doing It Wrong.You 're Spelling It Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can't, Your Doing It Wrong.You're Spelling It Wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856708</id>
	<title>Frist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264099740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am the <b>man</b>! XD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the man !
XD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the man!
XD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858346</id>
	<title>Re:Cost for Firefox H.264: $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264166940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The other problem is the GPL.  The only current open source H.264 implementation is x.264, which is GPL'd.  This means that it's incompatible with two of the three licenses used by Mozilla (LGPL and MPL), so even if patents were not an issue, it can't be distributed with FireFox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other problem is the GPL .
The only current open source H.264 implementation is x.264 , which is GPL 'd .
This means that it 's incompatible with two of the three licenses used by Mozilla ( LGPL and MPL ) , so even if patents were not an issue , it ca n't be distributed with FireFox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other problem is the GPL.
The only current open source H.264 implementation is x.264, which is GPL'd.
This means that it's incompatible with two of the three licenses used by Mozilla (LGPL and MPL), so even if patents were not an issue, it can't be distributed with FireFox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857688</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264158120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It has nothing to do with technical features, morals, <b>licensing</b>, or other commonly-argued things. Instead, it's about a critical-mass of popularity.</p></div></blockquote><p>Unfortunately the real world disagrees.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with technical features , morals , licensing , or other commonly-argued things .
Instead , it 's about a critical-mass of popularity.Unfortunately the real world disagrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with technical features, morals, licensing, or other commonly-argued things.
Instead, it's about a critical-mass of popularity.Unfortunately the real world disagrees.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30862786</id>
	<title>Not HTML5</title>
	<author>Baloo Uriza</author>
	<datestamp>1264193880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad HTML5 specifies Ogg Theora, not H.264.  This is about as much HTML5 as Silverlight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad HTML5 specifies Ogg Theora , not H.264 .
This is about as much HTML5 as Silverlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad HTML5 specifies Ogg Theora, not H.264.
This is about as much HTML5 as Silverlight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856802</id>
	<title>its a start</title>
	<author>frvfilmslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1264101060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is alot of comment!!!! for a hot topic,,</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is alot of comment ! ! ! !
for a hot topic,,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is alot of comment!!!!
for a hot topic,,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856896</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>javilon</author>
	<datestamp>1264102320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla should just link to the distribution's provided ffmpeg and just let you decide what codecs you compile in. That would mean that at least in FOSS operating systems the problem is sorted.</p><p>That would also mean less code to manintain, and to give an advantage to FOSS operating systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla should just link to the distribution 's provided ffmpeg and just let you decide what codecs you compile in .
That would mean that at least in FOSS operating systems the problem is sorted.That would also mean less code to manintain , and to give an advantage to FOSS operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla should just link to the distribution's provided ffmpeg and just let you decide what codecs you compile in.
That would mean that at least in FOSS operating systems the problem is sorted.That would also mean less code to manintain, and to give an advantage to FOSS operating systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856716</id>
	<title>Excellent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264099860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if only FireFox will get support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if only FireFox will get support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if only FireFox will get support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857050</id>
	<title>Re:Branding over functionality...</title>
	<author>LoverOfJoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264190940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know about Vimeo but <a href="http://www.youtube.com/html5" title="youtube.com">YouTube</a> [youtube.com], at least, lists full screen mode as one of the "restrictions" they are currently working on fixing. Hopefully it comes out of beta faster than the typical Google project.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know about Vimeo but YouTube [ youtube.com ] , at least , lists full screen mode as one of the " restrictions " they are currently working on fixing .
Hopefully it comes out of beta faster than the typical Google project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know about Vimeo but YouTube [youtube.com], at least, lists full screen mode as one of the "restrictions" they are currently working on fixing.
Hopefully it comes out of beta faster than the typical Google project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857696</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent.</title>
	<author>polyp2000</author>
	<datestamp>1264158120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You used the "J" word<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... surely it must be that simple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... LOL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You used the " J " word ... surely it must be that simple ... LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You used the "J" word ... surely it must be that simple ... LOL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857122</id>
	<title>Re:All hail HTML5 what a crock of shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264191720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah and fix those problems with TC/IP stack v 0.001 and dont forget the ones wrong with Linux kernel 0.0001, or the ones wrong with Mac 0.0001.<br> <br>
Seriously, this is all is needed for a +1 insightful mod?
<br> <br>
PS: my primary browser on linux has been chrome for quite a while, i cannot believe it was unusable or you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah and fix those problems with TC/IP stack v 0.001 and dont forget the ones wrong with Linux kernel 0.0001 , or the ones wrong with Mac 0.0001 .
Seriously , this is all is needed for a + 1 insightful mod ?
PS : my primary browser on linux has been chrome for quite a while , i can not believe it was unusable or you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah and fix those problems with TC/IP stack v 0.001 and dont forget the ones wrong with Linux kernel 0.0001, or the ones wrong with Mac 0.0001.
Seriously, this is all is needed for a +1 insightful mod?
PS: my primary browser on linux has been chrome for quite a while, i cannot believe it was unusable or you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860704</id>
	<title>Re:patenting how to make stuff is ok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264182120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>H264 is not an idea. It is a implementation/wrapper around many algorithms that allows people to encode and decode media. Thus, H264 is a product, and as such is patentable, so long as the scope of the patent is justifiable (aka, so long as the patent doesn't contain clauses restricting use of the algorithms in completely different applications).</p><p>The people behind H264 took ideas developed in academia and spent resources building a streamlined, usable product. The product is what is patented. The manipulated bits you mention are the videos you are encoding/decoding (which have no inherent value), not the product you are using to do the manipulations (the product has value as you are using it).</p><p>Many people release free software, for good reason. This does not mean that all software can not be a product. So if you disagree that H264 is not a product, don't use it or other software released as a product (once you have expressed your opinion, of course). If it has no value to you (you wouldn't be willing to pay for it), then you would be hypocritical to use it when there are free alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>H264 is not an idea .
It is a implementation/wrapper around many algorithms that allows people to encode and decode media .
Thus , H264 is a product , and as such is patentable , so long as the scope of the patent is justifiable ( aka , so long as the patent does n't contain clauses restricting use of the algorithms in completely different applications ) .The people behind H264 took ideas developed in academia and spent resources building a streamlined , usable product .
The product is what is patented .
The manipulated bits you mention are the videos you are encoding/decoding ( which have no inherent value ) , not the product you are using to do the manipulations ( the product has value as you are using it ) .Many people release free software , for good reason .
This does not mean that all software can not be a product .
So if you disagree that H264 is not a product , do n't use it or other software released as a product ( once you have expressed your opinion , of course ) .
If it has no value to you ( you would n't be willing to pay for it ) , then you would be hypocritical to use it when there are free alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H264 is not an idea.
It is a implementation/wrapper around many algorithms that allows people to encode and decode media.
Thus, H264 is a product, and as such is patentable, so long as the scope of the patent is justifiable (aka, so long as the patent doesn't contain clauses restricting use of the algorithms in completely different applications).The people behind H264 took ideas developed in academia and spent resources building a streamlined, usable product.
The product is what is patented.
The manipulated bits you mention are the videos you are encoding/decoding (which have no inherent value), not the product you are using to do the manipulations (the product has value as you are using it).Many people release free software, for good reason.
This does not mean that all software can not be a product.
So if you disagree that H264 is not a product, don't use it or other software released as a product (once you have expressed your opinion, of course).
If it has no value to you (you wouldn't be willing to pay for it), then you would be hypocritical to use it when there are free alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857040</id>
	<title>Daily Motion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264190880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's time Youtube is boycotted and everyone switches over to Daily Motion, which has been supporting Theora for several months already:<br><a href="http://blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/" title="dailymotion.com">http://blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/</a> [dailymotion.com]</p><p>Boycott probably not going to happen though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's time Youtube is boycotted and everyone switches over to Daily Motion , which has been supporting Theora for several months already : http : //blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/ [ dailymotion.com ] Boycott probably not going to happen though : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's time Youtube is boycotted and everyone switches over to Daily Motion, which has been supporting Theora for several months already:http://blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/ [dailymotion.com]Boycott probably not going to happen though :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860256</id>
	<title>Re:Cost for Firefox H.264: $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264179840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I'm not sure if Google does (can't think which apps it would be)</p><p>The unit count is for decoders \_or\_ encoders.  So Google is almost certainly already paying the licensing fees per unit for any machine involved in transcoding Youtube videos, say.  They may well be hitting the cap with just that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm not sure if Google does ( ca n't think which apps it would be ) The unit count is for decoders \ _or \ _ encoders .
So Google is almost certainly already paying the licensing fees per unit for any machine involved in transcoding Youtube videos , say .
They may well be hitting the cap with just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm not sure if Google does (can't think which apps it would be)The unit count is for decoders \_or\_ encoders.
So Google is almost certainly already paying the licensing fees per unit for any machine involved in transcoding Youtube videos, say.
They may well be hitting the cap with just that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857112</id>
	<title>Re:Daily Motion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264191660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>lol. i'd never heard of daily motion before, so it's chances of rolling youtube are slim to none, especially based on the back of h264 vs theora.</htmltext>
<tokenext>lol .
i 'd never heard of daily motion before , so it 's chances of rolling youtube are slim to none , especially based on the back of h264 vs theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol.
i'd never heard of daily motion before, so it's chances of rolling youtube are slim to none, especially based on the back of h264 vs theora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856936</id>
	<title>Re:This may not be an apt analogy, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264102920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I'm pretty sure porn went for HD-DVD. So it's not always the right indicator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm pretty sure porn went for HD-DVD .
So it 's not always the right indicator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm pretty sure porn went for HD-DVD.
So it's not always the right indicator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858016</id>
	<title>Re:This may not be an apt analogy, but</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264162680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if web video formats follow the precedents of home video, porn will be the deciding factor</i> </p><p>Replace "porn" with "Disney" and you would be much closer to the truth.</p><p>The Disney customer doesn't just view or rent - he buys. For his kids and for himself as a collector.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if web video formats follow the precedents of home video , porn will be the deciding factor Replace " porn " with " Disney " and you would be much closer to the truth.The Disney customer does n't just view or rent - he buys .
For his kids and for himself as a collector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if web video formats follow the precedents of home video, porn will be the deciding factor Replace "porn" with "Disney" and you would be much closer to the truth.The Disney customer doesn't just view or rent - he buys.
For his kids and for himself as a collector.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408</id>
	<title>Cost for Firefox H.264: $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>CritterNYC</author>
	<datestamp>1264153260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with H.264 is both its patent status and the licensing cost.  The patent means that it can't legally be used in software licensed under the GPL/LGPL 3.0 in countries like the US.  So, Mozilla would have to add a closed-source component to Firefox for it to be able to work.</p><p>But the other problem is the licensing fee.  Firefox ships so many software units that it will hit the enterprise cap for H.264 licensing every year.  In 2006, that cap was $3,500,000.  In 2007 it went up  to $4,250,000.  In 2009 it went up to $5,000,000.  In 2011, it is going to go up again.  So Mozilla will have to pay out $5,000,000 (and climbing) per year, just to support this one video codec in a product that they give away for free.  Their revenue in their last fiscal year was $78.6 million.</p><p>Is it really worth it to spend 6\% of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec?</p><p>Apple doesn't care, since they already hit the yearly cap anyway (see: iPod/iTunes) so it's free for them to include it in Safari.  I'm not sure if Google does (can't think which apps it would be), but they have the money to do it either way.  Opera and Mozilla don't currently have this expense... and they can't afford it.  Nor can any other upstart browser since once they hit 200k 'units' per year, they have to start paying $0.20 per download.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with H.264 is both its patent status and the licensing cost .
The patent means that it ca n't legally be used in software licensed under the GPL/LGPL 3.0 in countries like the US .
So , Mozilla would have to add a closed-source component to Firefox for it to be able to work.But the other problem is the licensing fee .
Firefox ships so many software units that it will hit the enterprise cap for H.264 licensing every year .
In 2006 , that cap was $ 3,500,000 .
In 2007 it went up to $ 4,250,000 .
In 2009 it went up to $ 5,000,000 .
In 2011 , it is going to go up again .
So Mozilla will have to pay out $ 5,000,000 ( and climbing ) per year , just to support this one video codec in a product that they give away for free .
Their revenue in their last fiscal year was $ 78.6 million.Is it really worth it to spend 6 \ % of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec ? Apple does n't care , since they already hit the yearly cap anyway ( see : iPod/iTunes ) so it 's free for them to include it in Safari .
I 'm not sure if Google does ( ca n't think which apps it would be ) , but they have the money to do it either way .
Opera and Mozilla do n't currently have this expense... and they ca n't afford it .
Nor can any other upstart browser since once they hit 200k 'units ' per year , they have to start paying $ 0.20 per download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with H.264 is both its patent status and the licensing cost.
The patent means that it can't legally be used in software licensed under the GPL/LGPL 3.0 in countries like the US.
So, Mozilla would have to add a closed-source component to Firefox for it to be able to work.But the other problem is the licensing fee.
Firefox ships so many software units that it will hit the enterprise cap for H.264 licensing every year.
In 2006, that cap was $3,500,000.
In 2007 it went up  to $4,250,000.
In 2009 it went up to $5,000,000.
In 2011, it is going to go up again.
So Mozilla will have to pay out $5,000,000 (and climbing) per year, just to support this one video codec in a product that they give away for free.
Their revenue in their last fiscal year was $78.6 million.Is it really worth it to spend 6\% of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec?Apple doesn't care, since they already hit the yearly cap anyway (see: iPod/iTunes) so it's free for them to include it in Safari.
I'm not sure if Google does (can't think which apps it would be), but they have the money to do it either way.
Opera and Mozilla don't currently have this expense... and they can't afford it.
Nor can any other upstart browser since once they hit 200k 'units' per year, they have to start paying $0.20 per download.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856912</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>jvillain</author>
	<datestamp>1264102680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has every thing to do with licensing. It is unreasonable to expect a nonprofit  group to fork out millions of dollars to give you a free product. If you want to start paying for FireFox maybe they can do some thing for you.</p><p>Audio and video are the only arrows left in the quiver of the proprietary companies. I think once companies start to realize that it is safe to do HTML5 you will see companies that say screw it we don't feel like paying these fat fees any more when we can use some thing free instead. Up until now they really didn't have much of a choice they were stuck with Flash. Now they have options It is simple business that if some one does some thing that lowers their costs you have to do some thing to lower yours. So as companies start moving towards lower cost and free codecs the others are going to have to follow them.</p><p>I do have to say that things are going to get interesting for Google going forward. They have been at war with Microsoft, they have already started a war with Apple and they are ramping up the war with the open standards and open source communities.  Soon they aren't going to have any friends left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has every thing to do with licensing .
It is unreasonable to expect a nonprofit group to fork out millions of dollars to give you a free product .
If you want to start paying for FireFox maybe they can do some thing for you.Audio and video are the only arrows left in the quiver of the proprietary companies .
I think once companies start to realize that it is safe to do HTML5 you will see companies that say screw it we do n't feel like paying these fat fees any more when we can use some thing free instead .
Up until now they really did n't have much of a choice they were stuck with Flash .
Now they have options It is simple business that if some one does some thing that lowers their costs you have to do some thing to lower yours .
So as companies start moving towards lower cost and free codecs the others are going to have to follow them.I do have to say that things are going to get interesting for Google going forward .
They have been at war with Microsoft , they have already started a war with Apple and they are ramping up the war with the open standards and open source communities .
Soon they are n't going to have any friends left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has every thing to do with licensing.
It is unreasonable to expect a nonprofit  group to fork out millions of dollars to give you a free product.
If you want to start paying for FireFox maybe they can do some thing for you.Audio and video are the only arrows left in the quiver of the proprietary companies.
I think once companies start to realize that it is safe to do HTML5 you will see companies that say screw it we don't feel like paying these fat fees any more when we can use some thing free instead.
Up until now they really didn't have much of a choice they were stuck with Flash.
Now they have options It is simple business that if some one does some thing that lowers their costs you have to do some thing to lower yours.
So as companies start moving towards lower cost and free codecs the others are going to have to follow them.I do have to say that things are going to get interesting for Google going forward.
They have been at war with Microsoft, they have already started a war with Apple and they are ramping up the war with the open standards and open source communities.
Soon they aren't going to have any friends left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260</id>
	<title>H.264</title>
	<author>FrostedWheat</author>
	<datestamp>1264193700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.</p><p>Repeat after me: <b>H.264 is NOT FREE</b>, not by a long way. If Firefox included H.264 support then <b>Firefox would also NOT BE FREE</b>. It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it 's somehow Mozilla 's fault that Firefox does n't support H.264.Repeat after me : H.264 is NOT FREE , not by a long way .
If Firefox included H.264 support then Firefox would also NOT BE FREE .
It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.Repeat after me: H.264 is NOT FREE, not by a long way.
If Firefox included H.264 support then Firefox would also NOT BE FREE.
It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30859864</id>
	<title>Re:Cost for Firefox H.264: $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1264178040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In 2009 it went up to $5,000,000.  In 2011, it is going to go up again.  So Mozilla will have to pay out $5,000,000 (and climbing) per year, just to support this one video codec in a product that they give away for free.  Their revenue in their last fiscal year was $78.6 million.</p><p>Is it really worth it to spend 6\% of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec?</p></div><p>More to the point, is it worth spending 6\% of your revenue on not having all of your customers switch to competing products?</p><p>Yes. Absolutely, undoubtedly yes.</p><p>You have to remember that Firefox is not IE - it doesn't come preinstalled on 90\% of computers shipped. Nearly everyone using that browser is doing so because they chose to switch to it from the system default. Given that both Safari and Chrome offer most of the features that got people to switch in the first place, it wouldn't come as a shock to see people migrate away from Firefox.  I switched to Safari for my full-time browsing a few months ago, and I'd been using Firefox since the pre-1.0 naming debacle. Most of the extensions that I cared about had some sort of counterpart, and it's consistently faster, more responsive, and has a lighter footprint.</p><p>Don't take this as an ad for Safari (it's not), but realize that browsers have started to suck a lot less since Firefox came out years and years ago, and that means competition.  And in my eyes, the competition is winning.  That's my opinion of course, but many of my geek friends that used to use Firefox have also switched to Chrome and/or Safari.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2009 it went up to $ 5,000,000 .
In 2011 , it is going to go up again .
So Mozilla will have to pay out $ 5,000,000 ( and climbing ) per year , just to support this one video codec in a product that they give away for free .
Their revenue in their last fiscal year was $ 78.6 million.Is it really worth it to spend 6 \ % of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec ? More to the point , is it worth spending 6 \ % of your revenue on not having all of your customers switch to competing products ? Yes .
Absolutely , undoubtedly yes.You have to remember that Firefox is not IE - it does n't come preinstalled on 90 \ % of computers shipped .
Nearly everyone using that browser is doing so because they chose to switch to it from the system default .
Given that both Safari and Chrome offer most of the features that got people to switch in the first place , it would n't come as a shock to see people migrate away from Firefox .
I switched to Safari for my full-time browsing a few months ago , and I 'd been using Firefox since the pre-1.0 naming debacle .
Most of the extensions that I cared about had some sort of counterpart , and it 's consistently faster , more responsive , and has a lighter footprint.Do n't take this as an ad for Safari ( it 's not ) , but realize that browsers have started to suck a lot less since Firefox came out years and years ago , and that means competition .
And in my eyes , the competition is winning .
That 's my opinion of course , but many of my geek friends that used to use Firefox have also switched to Chrome and/or Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2009 it went up to $5,000,000.
In 2011, it is going to go up again.
So Mozilla will have to pay out $5,000,000 (and climbing) per year, just to support this one video codec in a product that they give away for free.
Their revenue in their last fiscal year was $78.6 million.Is it really worth it to spend 6\% of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec?More to the point, is it worth spending 6\% of your revenue on not having all of your customers switch to competing products?Yes.
Absolutely, undoubtedly yes.You have to remember that Firefox is not IE - it doesn't come preinstalled on 90\% of computers shipped.
Nearly everyone using that browser is doing so because they chose to switch to it from the system default.
Given that both Safari and Chrome offer most of the features that got people to switch in the first place, it wouldn't come as a shock to see people migrate away from Firefox.
I switched to Safari for my full-time browsing a few months ago, and I'd been using Firefox since the pre-1.0 naming debacle.
Most of the extensions that I cared about had some sort of counterpart, and it's consistently faster, more responsive, and has a lighter footprint.Don't take this as an ad for Safari (it's not), but realize that browsers have started to suck a lot less since Firefox came out years and years ago, and that means competition.
And in my eyes, the competition is winning.
That's my opinion of course, but many of my geek friends that used to use Firefox have also switched to Chrome and/or Safari.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30861754</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264187700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get the hell outta here. Region codes for software?</p><p>I despise IP region locking. It's censorship and discrimination, and furthermore, unenforceable.</p><p>The fact that such brainless measures are unenforceable will then subsequently be unacceptable to brainless policymakers, who will then put an increasingly elaborate censorship infrastructure into place.</p><p>Hello vicious circle?</p><p>I have a better solution: how about we ignore the exponentially growing number of laws created by corporations for their own benefit and do a little "I am Spartacus"? Or would you rather continue this cat and mouse game until the lethal end?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the hell outta here .
Region codes for software ? I despise IP region locking .
It 's censorship and discrimination , and furthermore , unenforceable.The fact that such brainless measures are unenforceable will then subsequently be unacceptable to brainless policymakers , who will then put an increasingly elaborate censorship infrastructure into place.Hello vicious circle ? I have a better solution : how about we ignore the exponentially growing number of laws created by corporations for their own benefit and do a little " I am Spartacus " ?
Or would you rather continue this cat and mouse game until the lethal end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the hell outta here.
Region codes for software?I despise IP region locking.
It's censorship and discrimination, and furthermore, unenforceable.The fact that such brainless measures are unenforceable will then subsequently be unacceptable to brainless policymakers, who will then put an increasingly elaborate censorship infrastructure into place.Hello vicious circle?I have a better solution: how about we ignore the exponentially growing number of laws created by corporations for their own benefit and do a little "I am Spartacus"?
Or would you rather continue this cat and mouse game until the lethal end?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096</id>
	<title>Re:Here that wooshing sound, Firefox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264191540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>here's the thing - something that's genuinely new and required real effort like H264 to develop, patenting it is a valid use for the patent system. and if you look at the licensing terms for h264 is insanely fair and cheap - your looking at only $100,000 for a service with 1,000,000 subscribers, and thats only if your a commercial entity. i dare say if your running a website that has a subscription of over a million people you can afford $100,000 for the core technology that under pins your operation. if you can't, Your Doing It Wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>here 's the thing - something that 's genuinely new and required real effort like H264 to develop , patenting it is a valid use for the patent system .
and if you look at the licensing terms for h264 is insanely fair and cheap - your looking at only $ 100,000 for a service with 1,000,000 subscribers , and thats only if your a commercial entity .
i dare say if your running a website that has a subscription of over a million people you can afford $ 100,000 for the core technology that under pins your operation .
if you ca n't , Your Doing It Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here's the thing - something that's genuinely new and required real effort like H264 to develop, patenting it is a valid use for the patent system.
and if you look at the licensing terms for h264 is insanely fair and cheap - your looking at only $100,000 for a service with 1,000,000 subscribers, and thats only if your a commercial entity.
i dare say if your running a website that has a subscription of over a million people you can afford $100,000 for the core technology that under pins your operation.
if you can't, Your Doing It Wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858068</id>
	<title>Re:H.264</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264163220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.</i> </p><p>It would be perfectly legal if Firefox paid for the license.</p><p>Firefox isn't living on Poverty Ridge. It receives massive infusions of cash each year from Google alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy .
It would be perfectly legal if Firefox paid for the license.Firefox is n't living on Poverty Ridge .
It receives massive infusions of cash each year from Google alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.
It would be perfectly legal if Firefox paid for the license.Firefox isn't living on Poverty Ridge.
It receives massive infusions of cash each year from Google alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858684</id>
	<title>Thats the content provider fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264171380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox would be <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.ppt" title="mpegla.com" rel="nofollow">paying $5million/yr</a> [mpegla.com]. $5m would pay for a lot of codec development, and Firefox wouldn't be the only one paying: anyone else distributing a h264 supporting browser that isn't judgement proof would need to pay, and everyone serving up video. So practically, doing your hosting will no longer be realistic: We'll be stuck with service providers like youtube with their insane habit of taking your files down on a whim.</p><p>Mpegla states that they are already collecting $66 per every man, woman, and child on earth.  How much more do you think they're going to make once we hand them over the Internet?</p><p>Goodbye open web. Hello pay to play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox would be paying $ 5million/yr [ mpegla.com ] .
$ 5m would pay for a lot of codec development , and Firefox would n't be the only one paying : anyone else distributing a h264 supporting browser that is n't judgement proof would need to pay , and everyone serving up video .
So practically , doing your hosting will no longer be realistic : We 'll be stuck with service providers like youtube with their insane habit of taking your files down on a whim.Mpegla states that they are already collecting $ 66 per every man , woman , and child on earth .
How much more do you think they 're going to make once we hand them over the Internet ? Goodbye open web .
Hello pay to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox would be paying $5million/yr [mpegla.com].
$5m would pay for a lot of codec development, and Firefox wouldn't be the only one paying: anyone else distributing a h264 supporting browser that isn't judgement proof would need to pay, and everyone serving up video.
So practically, doing your hosting will no longer be realistic: We'll be stuck with service providers like youtube with their insane habit of taking your files down on a whim.Mpegla states that they are already collecting $66 per every man, woman, and child on earth.
How much more do you think they're going to make once we hand them over the Internet?Goodbye open web.
Hello pay to play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30864432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30862786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30866308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30859992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30861366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30859780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30865664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30861754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30859864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30863466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_021257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30862786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30864432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30865664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30866308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30859992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858684
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860284
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857980
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30859780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30861366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30859864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30858328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30861754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30860996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30863466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857092
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_021257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30856988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_021257.30857122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
