<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_01_020247</id>
	<title>India Objects To Google Book Settlement</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265042160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"About 15 Indian authors and publishers, and two Indian organizations, have submitted their <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/334450">objections to Google's plan to scan and sell books online</a>. Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head, according to Siddharth Arya, legal counsel for the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation, which licenses reproduction rights to books and other publications."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " About 15 Indian authors and publishers , and two Indian organizations , have submitted their objections to Google 's plan to scan and sell books online .
Google 's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head , according to Siddharth Arya , legal counsel for the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation , which licenses reproduction rights to books and other publications .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "About 15 Indian authors and publishers, and two Indian organizations, have submitted their objections to Google's plan to scan and sell books online.
Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head, according to Siddharth Arya, legal counsel for the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation, which licenses reproduction rights to books and other publications.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978340</id>
	<title>Re:oh-so-funny</title>
	<author>benxx</author>
	<datestamp>1265014860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, it's time to give the taste of their own medicine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , it 's time to give the taste of their own medicine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, it's time to give the taste of their own medicine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981076</id>
	<title>Re:Communism!</title>
	<author>Trahald</author>
	<datestamp>1265039640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is particularly relevant, because India doesn't have any decent libraries.</p><p>
I've lived all over India, in all the metros and in half a dozen other large cities and I have never seen a library with a good collection of books.
If you ask an Indian which library is the best in town, they'll name libraries such as the British Council Library!
<br>
Google can help India by making all these books available to every little town and village.
<br>
I piss on these authors who can see nothing beyond their own narrow self-interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is particularly relevant , because India does n't have any decent libraries .
I 've lived all over India , in all the metros and in half a dozen other large cities and I have never seen a library with a good collection of books .
If you ask an Indian which library is the best in town , they 'll name libraries such as the British Council Library !
Google can help India by making all these books available to every little town and village .
I piss on these authors who can see nothing beyond their own narrow self-interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is particularly relevant, because India doesn't have any decent libraries.
I've lived all over India, in all the metros and in half a dozen other large cities and I have never seen a library with a good collection of books.
If you ask an Indian which library is the best in town, they'll name libraries such as the British Council Library!
Google can help India by making all these books available to every little town and village.
I piss on these authors who can see nothing beyond their own narrow self-interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978620</id>
	<title>Re:oh-so-funny</title>
	<author>nashv</author>
	<datestamp>1265018340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Based on what reports? I'd appreciate a pointer - mostly because in 23 years of living there - I've found the problem to be the opposite, and have cringed at paying dollar/pound-converted prices in rupees that are disproportionate to the average Indian monthly income.

We know those books don't cost that much to print...there is a huge profit margin. I'd love to see Google digitize old books - paper is on its way out anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on what reports ?
I 'd appreciate a pointer - mostly because in 23 years of living there - I 've found the problem to be the opposite , and have cringed at paying dollar/pound-converted prices in rupees that are disproportionate to the average Indian monthly income .
We know those books do n't cost that much to print...there is a huge profit margin .
I 'd love to see Google digitize old books - paper is on its way out anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on what reports?
I'd appreciate a pointer - mostly because in 23 years of living there - I've found the problem to be the opposite, and have cringed at paying dollar/pound-converted prices in rupees that are disproportionate to the average Indian monthly income.
We know those books don't cost that much to print...there is a huge profit margin.
I'd love to see Google digitize old books - paper is on its way out anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30993770</id>
	<title>Re:This is atrocious!</title>
	<author>ramana8</author>
	<datestamp>1265117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>India Objects ? Bunch low life (boring authors) are objecting.

India doesn't care. Talk about yucky headlines !</htmltext>
<tokenext>India Objects ?
Bunch low life ( boring authors ) are objecting .
India does n't care .
Talk about yucky headlines !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>India Objects ?
Bunch low life (boring authors) are objecting.
India doesn't care.
Talk about yucky headlines !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430</id>
	<title>Communism!</title>
	<author>schmidt349</author>
	<datestamp>1264960020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God forbid Google should try to catalog, preserve, and make available out-of-print specialty books that are never going to get another run on the presses. I'm a specialist in a discipline (classical philology = ancient Greek/Roman literary studies) that depends heavily on this type of book, and I can't tell you the number of times I've discovered an old (like ca. 1960 or earlier) but important volume in a bibliography that my library doesn't have. I would kill to just be able to dial those books up on Google, but of course I can't because of bloodsuckers like these guys.</p><p>Eventually rare but important books are just going to start disappearing, and by the time the problem gets big enough that the right people are aware of it we won't be able to do anything. Thanks a lot, publishers, for destroying untold amounts of information. I hope it was worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God forbid Google should try to catalog , preserve , and make available out-of-print specialty books that are never going to get another run on the presses .
I 'm a specialist in a discipline ( classical philology = ancient Greek/Roman literary studies ) that depends heavily on this type of book , and I ca n't tell you the number of times I 've discovered an old ( like ca .
1960 or earlier ) but important volume in a bibliography that my library does n't have .
I would kill to just be able to dial those books up on Google , but of course I ca n't because of bloodsuckers like these guys.Eventually rare but important books are just going to start disappearing , and by the time the problem gets big enough that the right people are aware of it we wo n't be able to do anything .
Thanks a lot , publishers , for destroying untold amounts of information .
I hope it was worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God forbid Google should try to catalog, preserve, and make available out-of-print specialty books that are never going to get another run on the presses.
I'm a specialist in a discipline (classical philology = ancient Greek/Roman literary studies) that depends heavily on this type of book, and I can't tell you the number of times I've discovered an old (like ca.
1960 or earlier) but important volume in a bibliography that my library doesn't have.
I would kill to just be able to dial those books up on Google, but of course I can't because of bloodsuckers like these guys.Eventually rare but important books are just going to start disappearing, and by the time the problem gets big enough that the right people are aware of it we won't be able to do anything.
Thanks a lot, publishers, for destroying untold amounts of information.
I hope it was worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406</id>
	<title>This is atrocious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My people will not stand for this, there are over 1000 crore of us!</p><p>Seriously though, despite not RTFAing, I believe that googles bookscanning should be an opt in and not opt out process.</p><p>Thank you come again</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My people will not stand for this , there are over 1000 crore of us ! Seriously though , despite not RTFAing , I believe that googles bookscanning should be an opt in and not opt out process.Thank you come again</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My people will not stand for this, there are over 1000 crore of us!Seriously though, despite not RTFAing, I believe that googles bookscanning should be an opt in and not opt out process.Thank you come again</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977542</id>
	<title>Re:Opt out is a valid option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264961040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Chief Breaks Like The Wind</p></div><p>I think they're the other kind of Indian. You know, from India.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chief Breaks Like The WindI think they 're the other kind of Indian .
You know , from India .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chief Breaks Like The WindI think they're the other kind of Indian.
You know, from India.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977748</id>
	<title>Re:Opt out is a valid option</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1264963200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not about *leaving them alone*, it's about *not using their work*. To go for a Good Analogy: how would you like if the telemarketing agencies directly signed you up for the product without telling you? After all you just have to opt out...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about * leaving them alone * , it 's about * not using their work * .
To go for a Good Analogy : how would you like if the telemarketing agencies directly signed you up for the product without telling you ?
After all you just have to opt out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about *leaving them alone*, it's about *not using their work*.
To go for a Good Analogy: how would you like if the telemarketing agencies directly signed you up for the product without telling you?
After all you just have to opt out...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977600</id>
	<title>Re:Communism!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264961640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why give this power just to Google? Give <i>everyone</i> the right to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, if the registered copyright holder can't be contacted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why give this power just to Google ?
Give everyone the right to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material , if the registered copyright holder ca n't be contacted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why give this power just to Google?
Give everyone the right to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, if the registered copyright holder can't be contacted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981768</id>
	<title>Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265042280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?<br></i><br>Because some people are selfish, stingy assholes. The same kind of people who lock others out of their wifi connection because "I paid for it, why should my neighbor get it for free? I don't care if it doesn't cost me anything to share it, I'm a selfish bastard."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if you 're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ? Because some people are selfish , stingy assholes .
The same kind of people who lock others out of their wifi connection because " I paid for it , why should my neighbor get it for free ?
I do n't care if it does n't cost me anything to share it , I 'm a selfish bastard .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?Because some people are selfish, stingy assholes.
The same kind of people who lock others out of their wifi connection because "I paid for it, why should my neighbor get it for free?
I don't care if it doesn't cost me anything to share it, I'm a selfish bastard.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980608</id>
	<title>Re:the reason it's opt-out</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1265037420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked,</p><p>No not really. All it's really doing is setting the clock back about 30 years to before when Disney got ahold of American copyright law and bent it all out of shape. This "Google Tragedy" is actually setting things right to a considerable degree.</p><p>"Opt out" is also very much comparable to the real property equivalent. So all of you people whining about how "intellectual property" should be treated like the real thing should just STFU. You're getting what you've always whined for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked,No not really .
All it 's really doing is setting the clock back about 30 years to before when Disney got ahold of American copyright law and bent it all out of shape .
This " Google Tragedy " is actually setting things right to a considerable degree .
" Opt out " is also very much comparable to the real property equivalent .
So all of you people whining about how " intellectual property " should be treated like the real thing should just STFU .
You 're getting what you 've always whined for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked,No not really.
All it's really doing is setting the clock back about 30 years to before when Disney got ahold of American copyright law and bent it all out of shape.
This "Google Tragedy" is actually setting things right to a considerable degree.
"Opt out" is also very much comparable to the real property equivalent.
So all of you people whining about how "intellectual property" should be treated like the real thing should just STFU.
You're getting what you've always whined for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978574</id>
	<title>Re:Opt out is a valid option</title>
	<author>nashv</author>
	<datestamp>1265017920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And might I add, the actual Indians, not those who owe their name to Columbus' navigational skills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And might I add , the actual Indians , not those who owe their name to Columbus ' navigational skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And might I add, the actual Indians, not those who owe their name to Columbus' navigational skills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977448</id>
	<title>Wait - Sell?</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1264960200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen dozens of stories about this, and never got the impression that Google was going to <i>sell</i> the books it's scanning.  I thought it was purely free searching and browsing, with google profiting maybe from contextual advertising.<br> <br>

Are they planning selling print-on-demand copies?  For cost, or to turn a profit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen dozens of stories about this , and never got the impression that Google was going to sell the books it 's scanning .
I thought it was purely free searching and browsing , with google profiting maybe from contextual advertising .
Are they planning selling print-on-demand copies ?
For cost , or to turn a profit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen dozens of stories about this, and never got the impression that Google was going to sell the books it's scanning.
I thought it was purely free searching and browsing, with google profiting maybe from contextual advertising.
Are they planning selling print-on-demand copies?
For cost, or to turn a profit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526</id>
	<title>For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having read the article, it seems like a rather large whinge.</p><p>If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.<br>Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google that Books X, Y &amp; Z are opt-out, or even that ALL books that they publish are to be opt-out?<br>Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?</p><p>Whom deserves the greater inconvenience? Those who actively publish books or those who can't find the authors (dead, recluse, one name among millions) to get permission. Which one of those two is doing it for a living and has the ability to do so? Imho we can't trust publishers to provide information/contacts for authors and books so permission can be sought, when it's a task that won't earn them money. It seems that slating it as an opt-out forces those who want to maintain their control must actively do so, and no amount of spin is going to make the complaint about having to do more as part of publishing seem anything more than a whinge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read the article , it seems like a rather large whinge.If you 're receiving a royalty cheque for your books , then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google that Books X , Y &amp; Z are opt-out , or even that ALL books that they publish are to be opt-out ? Because if you 're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ? Whom deserves the greater inconvenience ?
Those who actively publish books or those who ca n't find the authors ( dead , recluse , one name among millions ) to get permission .
Which one of those two is doing it for a living and has the ability to do so ?
Imho we ca n't trust publishers to provide information/contacts for authors and books so permission can be sought , when it 's a task that wo n't earn them money .
It seems that slating it as an opt-out forces those who want to maintain their control must actively do so , and no amount of spin is going to make the complaint about having to do more as part of publishing seem anything more than a whinge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read the article, it seems like a rather large whinge.If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google that Books X, Y &amp; Z are opt-out, or even that ALL books that they publish are to be opt-out?Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?Whom deserves the greater inconvenience?
Those who actively publish books or those who can't find the authors (dead, recluse, one name among millions) to get permission.
Which one of those two is doing it for a living and has the ability to do so?
Imho we can't trust publishers to provide information/contacts for authors and books so permission can be sought, when it's a task that won't earn them money.
It seems that slating it as an opt-out forces those who want to maintain their control must actively do so, and no amount of spin is going to make the complaint about having to do more as part of publishing seem anything more than a whinge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978564</id>
	<title>Ultimate Max Burn</title>
	<author>stenlty</author>
	<datestamp>1265017740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft and Yahoo are the next largest global players after Google. After that are hundreds of smaller competitors who inhabit various niches.
Ultimate Max Burn</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft and Yahoo are the next largest global players after Google .
After that are hundreds of smaller competitors who inhabit various niches .
Ultimate Max Burn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft and Yahoo are the next largest global players after Google.
After that are hundreds of smaller competitors who inhabit various niches.
Ultimate Max Burn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978156</id>
	<title>Re:Opt out is a valid option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and how about when the next company wants to do it, you going to write them a note too? or how about the 10th, or the 100th? What google is doing is borderline criminal and definitely immoral and unethical. Opt Out sucks when you suddenly have to opt out of them stealing your work. If it is too much effort for them to try and contact the author then they shouldn't be doing this at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and how about when the next company wants to do it , you going to write them a note too ?
or how about the 10th , or the 100th ?
What google is doing is borderline criminal and definitely immoral and unethical .
Opt Out sucks when you suddenly have to opt out of them stealing your work .
If it is too much effort for them to try and contact the author then they should n't be doing this at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and how about when the next company wants to do it, you going to write them a note too?
or how about the 10th, or the 100th?
What google is doing is borderline criminal and definitely immoral and unethical.
Opt Out sucks when you suddenly have to opt out of them stealing your work.
If it is too much effort for them to try and contact the author then they shouldn't be doing this at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978328</id>
	<title>Objects in India?</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Objects in India are going to Google a book settlement? What kind of objects? And why can't they use Bing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Objects in India are going to Google a book settlement ?
What kind of objects ?
And why ca n't they use Bing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Objects in India are going to Google a book settlement?
What kind of objects?
And why can't they use Bing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980932</id>
	<title>Re:Deciding</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity </i></p><p>Not just for humanity's good, but for your own. Go to Cory Doctorow's web site and read <i>Little Brother</i>. It's a good novel, but outside the novel but inside the book is a very good explanation of WHY he puts his books online and free. If I've never heard of you there's no way in hell I'll buy one of your books, but if I check one out from the library (or read it on the internet) and like your work, I'm likely to buy a different one.</p><p>Nobody ever went broke from "piracy", but many have gone hungry from obscurity. Doctorow's a New York Times best selling author, and he gives some of the credit to the fact that he puts his books online.</p><p>Sometimes your own greed and stinginess can prevent you from making a lot of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity Not just for humanity 's good , but for your own .
Go to Cory Doctorow 's web site and read Little Brother .
It 's a good novel , but outside the novel but inside the book is a very good explanation of WHY he puts his books online and free .
If I 've never heard of you there 's no way in hell I 'll buy one of your books , but if I check one out from the library ( or read it on the internet ) and like your work , I 'm likely to buy a different one.Nobody ever went broke from " piracy " , but many have gone hungry from obscurity .
Doctorow 's a New York Times best selling author , and he gives some of the credit to the fact that he puts his books online.Sometimes your own greed and stinginess can prevent you from making a lot of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity Not just for humanity's good, but for your own.
Go to Cory Doctorow's web site and read Little Brother.
It's a good novel, but outside the novel but inside the book is a very good explanation of WHY he puts his books online and free.
If I've never heard of you there's no way in hell I'll buy one of your books, but if I check one out from the library (or read it on the internet) and like your work, I'm likely to buy a different one.Nobody ever went broke from "piracy", but many have gone hungry from obscurity.
Doctorow's a New York Times best selling author, and he gives some of the credit to the fact that he puts his books online.Sometimes your own greed and stinginess can prevent you from making a lot of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979668</id>
	<title>Above the law</title>
	<author>nawitus</author>
	<datestamp>1265032020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When Google does a huge scale for profit copyright infringement, they'll make a profit sharing deal. When a student shares 1 song to his friend non-commercially, he gets a $100 000 fine. That's justice in modern world. Corporations are above the law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Google does a huge scale for profit copyright infringement , they 'll make a profit sharing deal .
When a student shares 1 song to his friend non-commercially , he gets a $ 100 000 fine .
That 's justice in modern world .
Corporations are above the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Google does a huge scale for profit copyright infringement, they'll make a profit sharing deal.
When a student shares 1 song to his friend non-commercially, he gets a $100 000 fine.
That's justice in modern world.
Corporations are above the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981236</id>
	<title>Re:Communism!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God forbid Google should try to steal author's (and publisher's) copyrights without their permission under the pretense that 'a book somewhere may not be available without paying Google'. I'm a specialist in a discipline (no one cares about) that depends heavily on stealing other people's writing, and I can't tell you the number of times I've discovered an old (like I'm 20 so anything older than the eighties is, like, ancient) but currently out of print volume in a bibliography that my library doesn't have but I can pay for on Alibris. I would kill to not have to pay for these books myself, but of course I have to because of these people who believe they should decide who gets to republish THEIR books and not Google.</p><p>Eventually, according to the gods at Google, rare but important books are just going to start disappearing. I know this because rare books disappear from my university library all the time. No one know where they went. By the time the problem gets big enough that the people who actually want to crib passages from the books are aware of it we won't be able to find a copy that someone on Alibra isn't charging $75 for.</p><p>Thanks a lot, Google for wanting to get a slice of the publishing pie. I hope it's worth it.</p><p>There, fixed that for you, you big naive lug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God forbid Google should try to steal author 's ( and publisher 's ) copyrights without their permission under the pretense that 'a book somewhere may not be available without paying Google' .
I 'm a specialist in a discipline ( no one cares about ) that depends heavily on stealing other people 's writing , and I ca n't tell you the number of times I 've discovered an old ( like I 'm 20 so anything older than the eighties is , like , ancient ) but currently out of print volume in a bibliography that my library does n't have but I can pay for on Alibris .
I would kill to not have to pay for these books myself , but of course I have to because of these people who believe they should decide who gets to republish THEIR books and not Google.Eventually , according to the gods at Google , rare but important books are just going to start disappearing .
I know this because rare books disappear from my university library all the time .
No one know where they went .
By the time the problem gets big enough that the people who actually want to crib passages from the books are aware of it we wo n't be able to find a copy that someone on Alibra is n't charging $ 75 for.Thanks a lot , Google for wanting to get a slice of the publishing pie .
I hope it 's worth it.There , fixed that for you , you big naive lug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God forbid Google should try to steal author's (and publisher's) copyrights without their permission under the pretense that 'a book somewhere may not be available without paying Google'.
I'm a specialist in a discipline (no one cares about) that depends heavily on stealing other people's writing, and I can't tell you the number of times I've discovered an old (like I'm 20 so anything older than the eighties is, like, ancient) but currently out of print volume in a bibliography that my library doesn't have but I can pay for on Alibris.
I would kill to not have to pay for these books myself, but of course I have to because of these people who believe they should decide who gets to republish THEIR books and not Google.Eventually, according to the gods at Google, rare but important books are just going to start disappearing.
I know this because rare books disappear from my university library all the time.
No one know where they went.
By the time the problem gets big enough that the people who actually want to crib passages from the books are aware of it we won't be able to find a copy that someone on Alibra isn't charging $75 for.Thanks a lot, Google for wanting to get a slice of the publishing pie.
I hope it's worth it.There, fixed that for you, you big naive lug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30984122</id>
	<title>Re:Deciding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265051580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, <b>there</b> are those <b>who</b> are in it for the money, probably because that's what they studied to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there are those who are in it for the money , probably because that 's what they studied to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there are those who are in it for the money, probably because that's what they studied to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977928</id>
	<title>Indian Books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes because Indian books are in such demand worldwide.  Im off to download a book right now on how to tie a diaper to my head and paint a dot on my forehead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes because Indian books are in such demand worldwide .
Im off to download a book right now on how to tie a diaper to my head and paint a dot on my forehead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes because Indian books are in such demand worldwide.
Im off to download a book right now on how to tie a diaper to my head and paint a dot on my forehead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977690</id>
	<title>The optimistic side...</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1264962600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't they consider that this will indirectly promote their works to thousands of people? </p><p>

The proportion of people who would go to a library to read about something is getting increasingly small as far as I know. Any form of exposure on Internet will be beneficial to the authors in one form or another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't they consider that this will indirectly promote their works to thousands of people ?
The proportion of people who would go to a library to read about something is getting increasingly small as far as I know .
Any form of exposure on Internet will be beneficial to the authors in one form or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't they consider that this will indirectly promote their works to thousands of people?
The proportion of people who would go to a library to read about something is getting increasingly small as far as I know.
Any form of exposure on Internet will be beneficial to the authors in one form or another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979042</id>
	<title>So how would opt in work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how would opt in work? Would the author who is dead and has no relatives or recipients of the copyrights mail google and tell them the book is OK to scan?</p><p>Maybe they would email the entire world and wait until everyone in the world has answered "no, I don't own the copyrights" before scanning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how would opt in work ?
Would the author who is dead and has no relatives or recipients of the copyrights mail google and tell them the book is OK to scan ? Maybe they would email the entire world and wait until everyone in the world has answered " no , I do n't own the copyrights " before scanning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how would opt in work?
Would the author who is dead and has no relatives or recipients of the copyrights mail google and tell them the book is OK to scan?Maybe they would email the entire world and wait until everyone in the world has answered "no, I don't own the copyrights" before scanning?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30983702</id>
	<title>Re:the reason it's opt-out</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265050080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.</p></div><p>It's a very good argument for significant copyright term reduction. It's not a good argument for a settlement which puts a for-profit corporation in a privileged position of being able to effectively violate copyright, and not being held responsible for it, in a way no-one else can.</p><p>I mean, why can't <em>I</em> have authors "opt out" of, say, me downloading their books? After all, I can just assume that all books are orphaned unless I get told otherwise, so surely it's better that way?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it 's opt-out is that there 's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that ca n't be bought legally because they 're out of print.It 's a very good argument for significant copyright term reduction .
It 's not a good argument for a settlement which puts a for-profit corporation in a privileged position of being able to effectively violate copyright , and not being held responsible for it , in a way no-one else can.I mean , why ca n't I have authors " opt out " of , say , me downloading their books ?
After all , I can just assume that all books are orphaned unless I get told otherwise , so surely it 's better that way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.It's a very good argument for significant copyright term reduction.
It's not a good argument for a settlement which puts a for-profit corporation in a privileged position of being able to effectively violate copyright, and not being held responsible for it, in a way no-one else can.I mean, why can't I have authors "opt out" of, say, me downloading their books?
After all, I can just assume that all books are orphaned unless I get told otherwise, so surely it's better that way?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980186</id>
	<title>since when do...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when do 15 authors constitute "India"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when do 15 authors constitute " India " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when do 15 authors constitute "India"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980642</id>
	<title>Re:This is atrocious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is all about "taking", never about opt in. It's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission I guess.</p><p>Is anyone else bothered by a future where all information is stored electronically? Seems like a revisionist government/corporation could have their way with history just by flipping the doublespeak-bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is all about " taking " , never about opt in .
It 's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission I guess.Is anyone else bothered by a future where all information is stored electronically ?
Seems like a revisionist government/corporation could have their way with history just by flipping the doublespeak-bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is all about "taking", never about opt in.
It's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission I guess.Is anyone else bothered by a future where all information is stored electronically?
Seems like a revisionist government/corporation could have their way with history just by flipping the doublespeak-bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977710</id>
	<title>Re:Deciding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264962780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, so I assume you work your day job for free then? After all why aren't you profiting your services to the good of humanity but actually selling them to someone? What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , so I assume you work your day job for free then ?
After all why are n't you profiting your services to the good of humanity but actually selling them to someone ?
What about all the people who could use them but ca n't afford them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, so I assume you work your day job for free then?
After all why aren't you profiting your services to the good of humanity but actually selling them to someone?
What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978076</id>
	<title>the brown guy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264967820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think "India" objects to this deal about as much as the "USA" objects to China's censorship of the internets.</p><p>As in, not at all, because it's people and corporations that are objecting, not countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think " India " objects to this deal about as much as the " USA " objects to China 's censorship of the internets.As in , not at all , because it 's people and corporations that are objecting , not countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think "India" objects to this deal about as much as the "USA" objects to China's censorship of the internets.As in, not at all, because it's people and corporations that are objecting, not countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977486</id>
	<title>As a Cherokee author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have just unleashed my ditiyohihi on Google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have just unleashed my ditiyohihi on Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have just unleashed my ditiyohihi on Google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977462</id>
	<title>Re:This is atrocious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, yes. It seems atrocious when there are local prints of any and all books (including new ones) on which no royalties are paid to the publishers.

Heck, we just crank up our local presses, and print off any books we want or need...

If you doubt me, walk on the indian roads where they sell books on streets, and you'll find most new books, not the publisher print, but local for a fraction of the price.

Thank you come again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yes .
It seems atrocious when there are local prints of any and all books ( including new ones ) on which no royalties are paid to the publishers .
Heck , we just crank up our local presses , and print off any books we want or need.. . If you doubt me , walk on the indian roads where they sell books on streets , and you 'll find most new books , not the publisher print , but local for a fraction of the price .
Thank you come again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yes.
It seems atrocious when there are local prints of any and all books (including new ones) on which no royalties are paid to the publishers.
Heck, we just crank up our local presses, and print off any books we want or need...

If you doubt me, walk on the indian roads where they sell books on streets, and you'll find most new books, not the publisher print, but local for a fraction of the price.
Thank you come again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636</id>
	<title>the reason it's opt-out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264962120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print. The authors are probably dead, and the publishers aren't interested in communicating with anyone about the works, because the amount of money they could get out of it wouldn't be worth their time. Therefore it can't be opt-in. The copyright regime is having the effect of making these books permanently unavailable, which isn't doing the authors (or their heirs or their readers) any good. If copyright terms were more reasonable, it wouldn't be such a big problem, but congress has basically decided to keep extending copyrights so that they never expire. That's what's created this huge class of orphaned works. The only way to deal with the problem is to make it opt-out.
</p><p>
Some authors are complaining, after the class-action suit is all over, that it's unfair and they weren't consulted. Well, sorry, but that's how a class-action suit works. They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class, but if you don't see a notification, you're out of luck, and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else. Boo hoo. Go ahead and opt out.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it 's opt-out is that there 's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that ca n't be bought legally because they 're out of print .
The authors are probably dead , and the publishers are n't interested in communicating with anyone about the works , because the amount of money they could get out of it would n't be worth their time .
Therefore it ca n't be opt-in .
The copyright regime is having the effect of making these books permanently unavailable , which is n't doing the authors ( or their heirs or their readers ) any good .
If copyright terms were more reasonable , it would n't be such a big problem , but congress has basically decided to keep extending copyrights so that they never expire .
That 's what 's created this huge class of orphaned works .
The only way to deal with the problem is to make it opt-out .
Some authors are complaining , after the class-action suit is all over , that it 's unfair and they were n't consulted .
Well , sorry , but that 's how a class-action suit works .
They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class , but if you do n't see a notification , you 're out of luck , and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else .
Boo hoo .
Go ahead and opt out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.
The authors are probably dead, and the publishers aren't interested in communicating with anyone about the works, because the amount of money they could get out of it wouldn't be worth their time.
Therefore it can't be opt-in.
The copyright regime is having the effect of making these books permanently unavailable, which isn't doing the authors (or their heirs or their readers) any good.
If copyright terms were more reasonable, it wouldn't be such a big problem, but congress has basically decided to keep extending copyrights so that they never expire.
That's what's created this huge class of orphaned works.
The only way to deal with the problem is to make it opt-out.
Some authors are complaining, after the class-action suit is all over, that it's unfair and they weren't consulted.
Well, sorry, but that's how a class-action suit works.
They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class, but if you don't see a notification, you're out of luck, and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else.
Boo hoo.
Go ahead and opt out.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31000492</id>
	<title>Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.</i> </p><p>If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then you're likely no longer the copyright holder. I suspect you could not tell the one you sold your rights to that they either must cease publication (no more royalties) or to widen publication (maybe more royalties). If the present owner gets pissed off and decides to screw you by ceasing publication, I doubt there's anything you can do to say them nay.</p><p>Same as in software or pharmaceuticals -- the big guy may try to buy the upstart potential competitor out early, then bury the new idea in order to maintain their own  current revenue stream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're receiving a royalty cheque for your books , then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire .
If you 're receiving a royalty cheque for your books , then you 're likely no longer the copyright holder .
I suspect you could not tell the one you sold your rights to that they either must cease publication ( no more royalties ) or to widen publication ( maybe more royalties ) .
If the present owner gets pissed off and decides to screw you by ceasing publication , I doubt there 's anything you can do to say them nay.Same as in software or pharmaceuticals -- the big guy may try to buy the upstart potential competitor out early , then bury the new idea in order to maintain their own current revenue stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.
If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then you're likely no longer the copyright holder.
I suspect you could not tell the one you sold your rights to that they either must cease publication (no more royalties) or to widen publication (maybe more royalties).
If the present owner gets pissed off and decides to screw you by ceasing publication, I doubt there's anything you can do to say them nay.Same as in software or pharmaceuticals -- the big guy may try to buy the upstart potential competitor out early, then bury the new idea in order to maintain their own  current revenue stream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978188</id>
	<title>Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1265055840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also 14 authors/publishers does not make a lot of people for a country like India. Can't someone in India start a counter-petition? Acquiring more than 14 signatures shouldn't be too difficult these days. With a site like Facebook or its Indian equivalent, it shouldn't take more than five seconds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also 14 authors/publishers does not make a lot of people for a country like India .
Ca n't someone in India start a counter-petition ?
Acquiring more than 14 signatures should n't be too difficult these days .
With a site like Facebook or its Indian equivalent , it should n't take more than five seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also 14 authors/publishers does not make a lot of people for a country like India.
Can't someone in India start a counter-petition?
Acquiring more than 14 signatures shouldn't be too difficult these days.
With a site like Facebook or its Indian equivalent, it shouldn't take more than five seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977866</id>
	<title>So, Siddharth A.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264964880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Siddharth A., "legal counsel for the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation" eh... Disobeying your father, stealing the ferryman's money, running off... And now you probably don't want my biography to be published either. Kamala must have been a bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Siddharth A. , " legal counsel for the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation " eh... Disobeying your father , stealing the ferryman 's money , running off... And now you probably do n't want my biography to be published either .
Kamala must have been a bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Siddharth A., "legal counsel for the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation" eh... Disobeying your father, stealing the ferryman's money, running off... And now you probably don't want my biography to be published either.
Kamala must have been a bitch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31003764</id>
	<title>Whatever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They copy our jobs with impunity, so we should be able to copy their literature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They copy our jobs with impunity , so we should be able to copy their literature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They copy our jobs with impunity, so we should be able to copy their literature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30982162</id>
	<title>Karma is a what?</title>
	<author>auberondreaming</author>
	<datestamp>1265043900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having bought many an "international edition" of a textbook from this country this seems to be a case of the black hole calling the kettle black.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having bought many an " international edition " of a textbook from this country this seems to be a case of the black hole calling the kettle black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having bought many an "international edition" of a textbook from this country this seems to be a case of the black hole calling the kettle black.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30988738</id>
	<title>Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1265025900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google
  that Books X, Y &amp; Z are opt-out, or even that ALL books that they publish are
  to be opt-out?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yes. Economics 101: competition requires a market with several players.
A market with a single player is a monopoly.
</p><p>
The (class action) settlement gives Google alone the super-right of ignoring copyright.
Fix the settlement, so that every company and every person gets the
super-right to ignore copyright, and maybe we can talk about technical hurdles.</p><blockquote><div><p>why would you have any
  objections to it being available to all ?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The objection is that a single company gets to make it available to all, with the force of the law stopping everyone else making it available to all. Google gets to infringe copyright with impunity, but everybody else gets sued if they try the same thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google that Books X , Y &amp; Z are opt-out , or even that ALL books that they publish are to be opt-out ?
Yes. Economics 101 : competition requires a market with several players .
A market with a single player is a monopoly .
The ( class action ) settlement gives Google alone the super-right of ignoring copyright .
Fix the settlement , so that every company and every person gets the super-right to ignore copyright , and maybe we can talk about technical hurdles.why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?
The objection is that a single company gets to make it available to all , with the force of the law stopping everyone else making it available to all .
Google gets to infringe copyright with impunity , but everybody else gets sued if they try the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google
  that Books X, Y &amp; Z are opt-out, or even that ALL books that they publish are
  to be opt-out?
Yes. Economics 101: competition requires a market with several players.
A market with a single player is a monopoly.
The (class action) settlement gives Google alone the super-right of ignoring copyright.
Fix the settlement, so that every company and every person gets the
super-right to ignore copyright, and maybe we can talk about technical hurdles.why would you have any
  objections to it being available to all ?
The objection is that a single company gets to make it available to all, with the force of the law stopping everyone else making it available to all.
Google gets to infringe copyright with impunity, but everybody else gets sued if they try the same thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978214</id>
	<title>Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head</p></div><p>Good.  Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.</p></div><p>Yes.  Its much better now that the law only applies to the populace and not to mega-corporations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its headGood .
Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.Yes .
Its much better now that the law only applies to the populace and not to mega-corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its headGood.
Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.Yes.
Its much better now that the law only applies to the populace and not to mega-corporations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979086</id>
	<title>Re:the reason it's opt-out</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265024940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.</p></div><p>
This is not a good enough reason.<br>
<br>
Here is the deal. Right now its just Google trying to get this deal set up, so right now you would have to contact only one entity (Google) and that doesnt seem so bad...<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but you can bet your ass that Google will not hold an exclusive here for very long, because that would be terribly wrong on so many levels (can you say Monopoly?) Microsoft will get in the game, then others. Before you know it, the author will have to opt out on a dozen different services.. then two dozen.. then four.. all of them of course claiming that they couldnt contact him... which brings up another question: How much effort is actually required to contact the owners of the work before its considered "orphaned?" My guess is NONE.<br>
<br>
You can't make shit like this law. Its wrong. If you've got a problem with copyright law (as most of us do) then fix the law.. don't extend the problem by giving rights to Google that lets them side-skirt it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it 's opt-out is that there 's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that ca n't be bought legally because they 're out of print .
This is not a good enough reason .
Here is the deal .
Right now its just Google trying to get this deal set up , so right now you would have to contact only one entity ( Google ) and that doesnt seem so bad.. . ...but you can bet your ass that Google will not hold an exclusive here for very long , because that would be terribly wrong on so many levels ( can you say Monopoly ?
) Microsoft will get in the game , then others .
Before you know it , the author will have to opt out on a dozen different services.. then two dozen.. then four.. all of them of course claiming that they couldnt contact him... which brings up another question : How much effort is actually required to contact the owners of the work before its considered " orphaned ?
" My guess is NONE .
You ca n't make shit like this law .
Its wrong .
If you 've got a problem with copyright law ( as most of us do ) then fix the law.. do n't extend the problem by giving rights to Google that lets them side-skirt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.
This is not a good enough reason.
Here is the deal.
Right now its just Google trying to get this deal set up, so right now you would have to contact only one entity (Google) and that doesnt seem so bad...
 ...but you can bet your ass that Google will not hold an exclusive here for very long, because that would be terribly wrong on so many levels (can you say Monopoly?
) Microsoft will get in the game, then others.
Before you know it, the author will have to opt out on a dozen different services.. then two dozen.. then four.. all of them of course claiming that they couldnt contact him... which brings up another question: How much effort is actually required to contact the owners of the work before its considered "orphaned?
" My guess is NONE.
You can't make shit like this law.
Its wrong.
If you've got a problem with copyright law (as most of us do) then fix the law.. don't extend the problem by giving rights to Google that lets them side-skirt it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979018</id>
	<title>Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1265024100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opt out is NEVER a good thing. But appernetly Google can do so.</p><p>I got some copyright. That copyright tells that there is no opt-out. It is all opt-in. So if you, as a company, start to make deals I am not involved in that overstep those rights, you can be sure that I will complain.</p><p>What needs to change and can be done by governement is to firstly change the copyright laws. e.g. 14 years and after that it is in public domain. At that moment my rights are not violated and the company (or individual or whoever) can still index it to their harts content after that 14 years.</p><p>And to answer who deserves a greater inconvinience, that is easy to answer: the person who does not have the rights. And you are right that you can't trust publishers. However I also can't trust the indexer as they are also profit driven.</p><p>You do not have any rights of my copyrighted stuff. At this moment if I write something and have no desire to print more then 100 books, you do not  have a right to make book 101, no matter how good or importand it is. If you want to read that content, you either buy one of the books second hand, or convice me to publish book 101. If you want to distribute the content, you better ask permission as you do not have it.</p><p>It is not that I am in favour of this system, but what you need to do is slove the cause of the problem, not give ne company rights to ignore my rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opt out is NEVER a good thing .
But appernetly Google can do so.I got some copyright .
That copyright tells that there is no opt-out .
It is all opt-in .
So if you , as a company , start to make deals I am not involved in that overstep those rights , you can be sure that I will complain.What needs to change and can be done by governement is to firstly change the copyright laws .
e.g. 14 years and after that it is in public domain .
At that moment my rights are not violated and the company ( or individual or whoever ) can still index it to their harts content after that 14 years.And to answer who deserves a greater inconvinience , that is easy to answer : the person who does not have the rights .
And you are right that you ca n't trust publishers .
However I also ca n't trust the indexer as they are also profit driven.You do not have any rights of my copyrighted stuff .
At this moment if I write something and have no desire to print more then 100 books , you do not have a right to make book 101 , no matter how good or importand it is .
If you want to read that content , you either buy one of the books second hand , or convice me to publish book 101 .
If you want to distribute the content , you better ask permission as you do not have it.It is not that I am in favour of this system , but what you need to do is slove the cause of the problem , not give ne company rights to ignore my rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opt out is NEVER a good thing.
But appernetly Google can do so.I got some copyright.
That copyright tells that there is no opt-out.
It is all opt-in.
So if you, as a company, start to make deals I am not involved in that overstep those rights, you can be sure that I will complain.What needs to change and can be done by governement is to firstly change the copyright laws.
e.g. 14 years and after that it is in public domain.
At that moment my rights are not violated and the company (or individual or whoever) can still index it to their harts content after that 14 years.And to answer who deserves a greater inconvinience, that is easy to answer: the person who does not have the rights.
And you are right that you can't trust publishers.
However I also can't trust the indexer as they are also profit driven.You do not have any rights of my copyrighted stuff.
At this moment if I write something and have no desire to print more then 100 books, you do not  have a right to make book 101, no matter how good or importand it is.
If you want to read that content, you either buy one of the books second hand, or convice me to publish book 101.
If you want to distribute the content, you better ask permission as you do not have it.It is not that I am in favour of this system, but what you need to do is slove the cause of the problem, not give ne company rights to ignore my rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978008</id>
	<title>Google has some trouble</title>
	<author>mec08</author>
	<datestamp>1264966860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact, I support google . He just want to give more use-full information to people on the internet.

But he has some trouble, not only in  Indian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,Also in my own county,China.

Good luck ! google !</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , I support google .
He just want to give more use-full information to people on the internet .
But he has some trouble , not only in Indian ,Also in my own county,China .
Good luck !
google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, I support google .
He just want to give more use-full information to people on the internet.
But he has some trouble, not only in  Indian ,Also in my own county,China.
Good luck !
google !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978152</id>
	<title>Re:the reason it's opt-out</title>
	<author>sapphire wyvern</author>
	<datestamp>1265055420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked, and it's being implemented by private enterprise and a trade association and their associated lawyers without any actual involvement of an elected legislature or executive.</p><p>I'm all for the creation of a right to scan, archive, and make available orphaned works. I'm happy for Google to do the work and take whatever profit they can obtain from the market for orphaned works. (In fact, I think that if a copyright holder fails to make their copyrighted works available on Reasonable And Non Discriminatory terms, their copyright protection on those works should automatically cease. It should *never* be possible to use copyright to keep culture and knowledge away from public access). However, I think that right should be created by proper modification to copyright law, not by using class-action law to make an end run around the legislative system to create a monopoly on Google's behalf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked , and it 's being implemented by private enterprise and a trade association and their associated lawyers without any actual involvement of an elected legislature or executive.I 'm all for the creation of a right to scan , archive , and make available orphaned works .
I 'm happy for Google to do the work and take whatever profit they can obtain from the market for orphaned works .
( In fact , I think that if a copyright holder fails to make their copyrighted works available on Reasonable And Non Discriminatory terms , their copyright protection on those works should automatically cease .
It should * never * be possible to use copyright to keep culture and knowledge away from public access ) .
However , I think that right should be created by proper modification to copyright law , not by using class-action law to make an end run around the legislative system to create a monopoly on Google 's behalf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked, and it's being implemented by private enterprise and a trade association and their associated lawyers without any actual involvement of an elected legislature or executive.I'm all for the creation of a right to scan, archive, and make available orphaned works.
I'm happy for Google to do the work and take whatever profit they can obtain from the market for orphaned works.
(In fact, I think that if a copyright holder fails to make their copyrighted works available on Reasonable And Non Discriminatory terms, their copyright protection on those works should automatically cease.
It should *never* be possible to use copyright to keep culture and knowledge away from public access).
However, I think that right should be created by proper modification to copyright law, not by using class-action law to make an end run around the legislative system to create a monopoly on Google's behalf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981284</id>
	<title>Re:the reason it's opt-out</title>
	<author>Requia</author>
	<datestamp>1265040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really not a huge change at all.  The difference is, if Google publishes your book, instead of an expensive lawsuit you let Google know to stop that.  And you still get payed for your effort, this just limits Google's liability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really not a huge change at all .
The difference is , if Google publishes your book , instead of an expensive lawsuit you let Google know to stop that .
And you still get payed for your effort , this just limits Google 's liability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really not a huge change at all.
The difference is, if Google publishes your book, instead of an expensive lawsuit you let Google know to stop that.
And you still get payed for your effort, this just limits Google's liability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977780</id>
	<title>Re:the reason it's opt-out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264963560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes But I'm Not American  - so why does your legal system grant google the right to my work for free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes But I 'm Not American - so why does your legal system grant google the right to my work for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes But I'm Not American  - so why does your legal system grant google the right to my work for free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977716</id>
	<title>Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1264962840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do not worry, the settlement will only apply to Google. You are still subject to death penalty if you whistle a copyrighted song.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not worry , the settlement will only apply to Google .
You are still subject to death penalty if you whistle a copyrighted song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not worry, the settlement will only apply to Google.
You are still subject to death penalty if you whistle a copyrighted song.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438</id>
	<title>Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...</title>
	<author>peipas</author>
	<datestamp>1264960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head</p></div><p>Good.  Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its headGood .
Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its headGood.
Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978040</id>
	<title>oh-so-funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264967220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is amusing as india is one of the largest producers of copyright protected books, without license, in the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is amusing as india is one of the largest producers of copyright protected books , without license , in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is amusing as india is one of the largest producers of copyright protected books, without license, in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30986494</id>
	<title>Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1265017260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head</p></div><p>Good.  Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.</p></div><p>I see this potentially being about more than specific copyright law. There has been such a big fuss about the direction Google has taken with Google Books, and I've read a lot of opinions on Slashdot that point to this and rebuke Google for it. If I'm to interpret this by "Do no evil" then I am hard pressed to sympathise with authors and publishers at all. With ebooks moving more into the mainstream, thanks largely to ebook readers like the Kindle and the ebook stores that pair with such devices, I see more and more parallels to what we as consumers went through with the music industry.</p><p>Once upon a time, labels wanted consumers to only be able to buy physical CDs, at prices that many consumers felt was too high ($15-20). When MP3 players became wide spread, the music industry couldn't hold onto that model of selling a high priced CD driven largely by a single hit song or two. Then we had digital download stores, and even subscription stores where you had access to entire catalogues while you were a subscriber. We have that even with movies now.</p><p>As ebook readers spread, I see yet another industry threatened by a digital aspect to their business model. You can't watch a cable news show or network talk show without someone plugging a book, even if it's not relevant to the discussed topic. A lot of these books are timed releases, interested in context to what's going on, but not something I'd want to own. Library's lend books, but they are quite limited and may not even get the new releases until the context that makes them interesting has passed.</p><p>In short, the publishers and authors profit through those limitations rather than pure quality. If these books could be rented to an ebook reader for a low price, the publishing industry would lose millions, but consumers would get a better deal (read the Amazon vs. MacMillan slashdot discussion for a flood of complaints about ebook pricing). Just think about how the Opera Book club would have played out if everyone could read her latest recommendation for a couple dollars rather than buying a hardcopy for $15-30 to read it one time.</p><p>Authors will complain their work is worth the price, but as someone who likes to read a lot of different things and keeps a library of carefully selected books on my bookshelf, there is clearly a range in value when it comes to books. If a campaign aide or government official ghost writes a "tell all" book, it's definitely not worth it's price, although I would otherwise read it once. Other books are brilliant works, and I'd buy them even after having rented it. In fact, I'd be more prone to spend more on the books that I buy, say opting for a nice hardcover edition, because they would become part of my library.</p><p>This may largely be a separate issue from Google's battles with publishers and author's groups. Still, I bring it up because if Google manages to find a ebook business model that better reflect how I see the consumer value of books, that's fantastic, and I hope they manage to overcome opposition from everyone who will be forced to face a change in their industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its headGood .
Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.I see this potentially being about more than specific copyright law .
There has been such a big fuss about the direction Google has taken with Google Books , and I 've read a lot of opinions on Slashdot that point to this and rebuke Google for it .
If I 'm to interpret this by " Do no evil " then I am hard pressed to sympathise with authors and publishers at all .
With ebooks moving more into the mainstream , thanks largely to ebook readers like the Kindle and the ebook stores that pair with such devices , I see more and more parallels to what we as consumers went through with the music industry.Once upon a time , labels wanted consumers to only be able to buy physical CDs , at prices that many consumers felt was too high ( $ 15-20 ) .
When MP3 players became wide spread , the music industry could n't hold onto that model of selling a high priced CD driven largely by a single hit song or two .
Then we had digital download stores , and even subscription stores where you had access to entire catalogues while you were a subscriber .
We have that even with movies now.As ebook readers spread , I see yet another industry threatened by a digital aspect to their business model .
You ca n't watch a cable news show or network talk show without someone plugging a book , even if it 's not relevant to the discussed topic .
A lot of these books are timed releases , interested in context to what 's going on , but not something I 'd want to own .
Library 's lend books , but they are quite limited and may not even get the new releases until the context that makes them interesting has passed.In short , the publishers and authors profit through those limitations rather than pure quality .
If these books could be rented to an ebook reader for a low price , the publishing industry would lose millions , but consumers would get a better deal ( read the Amazon vs. MacMillan slashdot discussion for a flood of complaints about ebook pricing ) .
Just think about how the Opera Book club would have played out if everyone could read her latest recommendation for a couple dollars rather than buying a hardcopy for $ 15-30 to read it one time.Authors will complain their work is worth the price , but as someone who likes to read a lot of different things and keeps a library of carefully selected books on my bookshelf , there is clearly a range in value when it comes to books .
If a campaign aide or government official ghost writes a " tell all " book , it 's definitely not worth it 's price , although I would otherwise read it once .
Other books are brilliant works , and I 'd buy them even after having rented it .
In fact , I 'd be more prone to spend more on the books that I buy , say opting for a nice hardcover edition , because they would become part of my library.This may largely be a separate issue from Google 's battles with publishers and author 's groups .
Still , I bring it up because if Google manages to find a ebook business model that better reflect how I see the consumer value of books , that 's fantastic , and I hope they manage to overcome opposition from everyone who will be forced to face a change in their industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its headGood.
Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.I see this potentially being about more than specific copyright law.
There has been such a big fuss about the direction Google has taken with Google Books, and I've read a lot of opinions on Slashdot that point to this and rebuke Google for it.
If I'm to interpret this by "Do no evil" then I am hard pressed to sympathise with authors and publishers at all.
With ebooks moving more into the mainstream, thanks largely to ebook readers like the Kindle and the ebook stores that pair with such devices, I see more and more parallels to what we as consumers went through with the music industry.Once upon a time, labels wanted consumers to only be able to buy physical CDs, at prices that many consumers felt was too high ($15-20).
When MP3 players became wide spread, the music industry couldn't hold onto that model of selling a high priced CD driven largely by a single hit song or two.
Then we had digital download stores, and even subscription stores where you had access to entire catalogues while you were a subscriber.
We have that even with movies now.As ebook readers spread, I see yet another industry threatened by a digital aspect to their business model.
You can't watch a cable news show or network talk show without someone plugging a book, even if it's not relevant to the discussed topic.
A lot of these books are timed releases, interested in context to what's going on, but not something I'd want to own.
Library's lend books, but they are quite limited and may not even get the new releases until the context that makes them interesting has passed.In short, the publishers and authors profit through those limitations rather than pure quality.
If these books could be rented to an ebook reader for a low price, the publishing industry would lose millions, but consumers would get a better deal (read the Amazon vs. MacMillan slashdot discussion for a flood of complaints about ebook pricing).
Just think about how the Opera Book club would have played out if everyone could read her latest recommendation for a couple dollars rather than buying a hardcopy for $15-30 to read it one time.Authors will complain their work is worth the price, but as someone who likes to read a lot of different things and keeps a library of carefully selected books on my bookshelf, there is clearly a range in value when it comes to books.
If a campaign aide or government official ghost writes a "tell all" book, it's definitely not worth it's price, although I would otherwise read it once.
Other books are brilliant works, and I'd buy them even after having rented it.
In fact, I'd be more prone to spend more on the books that I buy, say opting for a nice hardcover edition, because they would become part of my library.This may largely be a separate issue from Google's battles with publishers and author's groups.
Still, I bring it up because if Google manages to find a ebook business model that better reflect how I see the consumer value of books, that's fantastic, and I hope they manage to overcome opposition from everyone who will be forced to face a change in their industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30994482</id>
	<title>Re:Opt out is a valid option</title>
	<author>bingoUV</author>
	<datestamp>1265122800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone, it's not a <i>terribly huge burden</i>. For a bunch of people who make their living *writing*, what's the big deal in saying, "Hey Goog, don't upload my books. Thanks, Chief Breaks Like The Wind"?</p></div><p>Who gave you (Or Google, or US district court, or anyone) the authority to decide what is or is not a huge burden without giving the copyright-holders a hearing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone , it 's not a terribly huge burden .
For a bunch of people who make their living * writing * , what 's the big deal in saying , " Hey Goog , do n't upload my books .
Thanks , Chief Breaks Like The Wind " ? Who gave you ( Or Google , or US district court , or anyone ) the authority to decide what is or is not a huge burden without giving the copyright-holders a hearing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone, it's not a terribly huge burden.
For a bunch of people who make their living *writing*, what's the big deal in saying, "Hey Goog, don't upload my books.
Thanks, Chief Breaks Like The Wind"?Who gave you (Or Google, or US district court, or anyone) the authority to decide what is or is not a huge burden without giving the copyright-holders a hearing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977440</id>
	<title>Re:This is atrocious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Crore" is 100k in "Indian".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Crore " is 100k in " Indian " .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Crore" is 100k in "Indian".
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978148</id>
	<title>Re:Communism!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't google (or ) still copy and digitize all the books in question, but not release them to the public? Copying for copying sake (read: not distributing) should be fine in this case. And at least this way, when the powers that be do realize the importance of having a book published in 1960 available to the public in 2135, the copies will have already been created and preserved.</p><p>This assumes of course, data stored on today's media will still be readable in 2135, time travel has not been perfected, and that  has not been taken over by the Pepsi-Cola Corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't google ( or ) still copy and digitize all the books in question , but not release them to the public ?
Copying for copying sake ( read : not distributing ) should be fine in this case .
And at least this way , when the powers that be do realize the importance of having a book published in 1960 available to the public in 2135 , the copies will have already been created and preserved.This assumes of course , data stored on today 's media will still be readable in 2135 , time travel has not been perfected , and that has not been taken over by the Pepsi-Cola Corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't google (or ) still copy and digitize all the books in question, but not release them to the public?
Copying for copying sake (read: not distributing) should be fine in this case.
And at least this way, when the powers that be do realize the importance of having a book published in 1960 available to the public in 2135, the copies will have already been created and preserved.This assumes of course, data stored on today's media will still be readable in 2135, time travel has not been perfected, and that  has not been taken over by the Pepsi-Cola Corporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30984216</id>
	<title>India Objects To Google Book Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After I instanciate an India class, how do I get it to google for "book settlement"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After I instanciate an India class , how do I get it to google for " book settlement " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After I instanciate an India class, how do I get it to google for "book settlement"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420</id>
	<title>Opt out is a valid option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to get called every evening several times by unscrupulous companies trying to part me from my money. They expanded from just calling my home to calling me at the office, then calling my family. What started as a polite brief conversation in which I rejected their offer and asked them to stop calling me became a vicious conversation with yelling on each end of the phone. Hanging up had no effect since they simply called me back. Somehow my phone number was marked as Active and I was harassed incessantly by these goons.</p><p>But then I found out about opting out and did just that. Now when I get a call from these telemarketing agencies I make sure I get their name and then report them to the local BBB. It's nice to have recourse when I get called now.</p><p>So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone, it's not a terribly huge burden. For a bunch of people who make their living *writing*, what's the big deal in saying, "Hey Goog, don't upload my books. Thanks, Chief Breaks Like The Wind"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to get called every evening several times by unscrupulous companies trying to part me from my money .
They expanded from just calling my home to calling me at the office , then calling my family .
What started as a polite brief conversation in which I rejected their offer and asked them to stop calling me became a vicious conversation with yelling on each end of the phone .
Hanging up had no effect since they simply called me back .
Somehow my phone number was marked as Active and I was harassed incessantly by these goons.But then I found out about opting out and did just that .
Now when I get a call from these telemarketing agencies I make sure I get their name and then report them to the local BBB .
It 's nice to have recourse when I get called now.So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone , it 's not a terribly huge burden .
For a bunch of people who make their living * writing * , what 's the big deal in saying , " Hey Goog , do n't upload my books .
Thanks , Chief Breaks Like The Wind " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to get called every evening several times by unscrupulous companies trying to part me from my money.
They expanded from just calling my home to calling me at the office, then calling my family.
What started as a polite brief conversation in which I rejected their offer and asked them to stop calling me became a vicious conversation with yelling on each end of the phone.
Hanging up had no effect since they simply called me back.
Somehow my phone number was marked as Active and I was harassed incessantly by these goons.But then I found out about opting out and did just that.
Now when I get a call from these telemarketing agencies I make sure I get their name and then report them to the local BBB.
It's nice to have recourse when I get called now.So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone, it's not a terribly huge burden.
For a bunch of people who make their living *writing*, what's the big deal in saying, "Hey Goog, don't upload my books.
Thanks, Chief Breaks Like The Wind"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979164</id>
	<title>Re:Deciding</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1265026080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?</p></div><p>Most day jobs are of the type where you're sold out - if you make 800 products, 800 people will buy at $50 and 800 people will buy at $0. It's just that their $40000 is going to you, so there's no net harm done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all the people who could use them but ca n't afford them ? Most day jobs are of the type where you 're sold out - if you make 800 products , 800 people will buy at $ 50 and 800 people will buy at $ 0 .
It 's just that their $ 40000 is going to you , so there 's no net harm done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?Most day jobs are of the type where you're sold out - if you make 800 products, 800 people will buy at $50 and 800 people will buy at $0.
It's just that their $40000 is going to you, so there's no net harm done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977532</id>
	<title>if copyright expired, this wouldn't be a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>copyright law already got turned up on its head when copyrights stopped expiring (well the technically expire, but the expiration date keeps getting pushed back in a way that nothing currently copyrighted will expire).  One of the points of this being opt-out instead of opt-in is to preserve what is essentially the book version of abandonware.  If this was opt-in, then books where the copyright owner was not known or disputed or couldn't be tracked down would not be able to be apart of the project.  If copyright expired, then this wouldn't be as much of a problem since Google would only have to wait until the copyright expired before making it a part of the project.  Since copyrights don't expire, this is the next best option (at least from their perspective).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>copyright law already got turned up on its head when copyrights stopped expiring ( well the technically expire , but the expiration date keeps getting pushed back in a way that nothing currently copyrighted will expire ) .
One of the points of this being opt-out instead of opt-in is to preserve what is essentially the book version of abandonware .
If this was opt-in , then books where the copyright owner was not known or disputed or could n't be tracked down would not be able to be apart of the project .
If copyright expired , then this would n't be as much of a problem since Google would only have to wait until the copyright expired before making it a part of the project .
Since copyrights do n't expire , this is the next best option ( at least from their perspective ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>copyright law already got turned up on its head when copyrights stopped expiring (well the technically expire, but the expiration date keeps getting pushed back in a way that nothing currently copyrighted will expire).
One of the points of this being opt-out instead of opt-in is to preserve what is essentially the book version of abandonware.
If this was opt-in, then books where the copyright owner was not known or disputed or couldn't be tracked down would not be able to be apart of the project.
If copyright expired, then this wouldn't be as much of a problem since Google would only have to wait until the copyright expired before making it a part of the project.
Since copyrights don't expire, this is the next best option (at least from their perspective).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978254</id>
	<title>Re:Opt out is a valid option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compare that to an opt-in system where you wouldn't even have had to bother with them in the first place<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare that to an opt-in system where you would n't even have had to bother with them in the first place .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare that to an opt-in system where you wouldn't even have had to bother with them in the first place ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979452</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - Sell?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265029560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has a deal with some books-on-demand kiosk company to sell these out-of-print books via that means. I hear the binding is super-shitty, but if you could optionally get it printed on good paper and with some kind of durable toner (or whatever) you could have books rebound if you wanted to keep them. It might even lead to a cottage industry in bookbinding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has a deal with some books-on-demand kiosk company to sell these out-of-print books via that means .
I hear the binding is super-shitty , but if you could optionally get it printed on good paper and with some kind of durable toner ( or whatever ) you could have books rebound if you wanted to keep them .
It might even lead to a cottage industry in bookbinding : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has a deal with some books-on-demand kiosk company to sell these out-of-print books via that means.
I hear the binding is super-shitty, but if you could optionally get it printed on good paper and with some kind of durable toner (or whatever) you could have books rebound if you wanted to keep them.
It might even lead to a cottage industry in bookbinding :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30992498</id>
	<title>Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The alternative is seeing a large body of work disappear because nobody can legally preserve it, which seems to me to be socially undesirable.</i> </p><p>In this regard, think about the IP that was buried when Lernout and Hauspie went down for financial problems. They had the best available voice recognition stuff available. When they were liquidated, the outfit tht bought the assets didn't know how to value the IP wrapped up in the code, so they just sat on it instead of selling it at some price that might eventually prove to have been less than the realized value.</p><p>I haven't followed it all that closely, but I think it was the Dragon product, which may sooner or later have been re-released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The alternative is seeing a large body of work disappear because nobody can legally preserve it , which seems to me to be socially undesirable .
In this regard , think about the IP that was buried when Lernout and Hauspie went down for financial problems .
They had the best available voice recognition stuff available .
When they were liquidated , the outfit tht bought the assets did n't know how to value the IP wrapped up in the code , so they just sat on it instead of selling it at some price that might eventually prove to have been less than the realized value.I have n't followed it all that closely , but I think it was the Dragon product , which may sooner or later have been re-released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alternative is seeing a large body of work disappear because nobody can legally preserve it, which seems to me to be socially undesirable.
In this regard, think about the IP that was buried when Lernout and Hauspie went down for financial problems.
They had the best available voice recognition stuff available.
When they were liquidated, the outfit tht bought the assets didn't know how to value the IP wrapped up in the code, so they just sat on it instead of selling it at some price that might eventually prove to have been less than the realized value.I haven't followed it all that closely, but I think it was the Dragon product, which may sooner or later have been re-released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31020108</id>
	<title>Re:the reason it's opt-out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265278560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If google can obtain the right to profit from unauthorized copying of other's work, simply by scanning it, then every other company or individual on earth should also be able to do so, even by simply making a digital copy of google's copy.  If to copy a work provides the right to sell copies of that work, how can that principle apply only to google and not to anyone else?  The constitution requires that law apply equally to everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If google can obtain the right to profit from unauthorized copying of other 's work , simply by scanning it , then every other company or individual on earth should also be able to do so , even by simply making a digital copy of google 's copy .
If to copy a work provides the right to sell copies of that work , how can that principle apply only to google and not to anyone else ?
The constitution requires that law apply equally to everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If google can obtain the right to profit from unauthorized copying of other's work, simply by scanning it, then every other company or individual on earth should also be able to do so, even by simply making a digital copy of google's copy.
If to copy a work provides the right to sell copies of that work, how can that principle apply only to google and not to anyone else?
The constitution requires that law apply equally to everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978146</id>
	<title>Re:This is atrocious!</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1265055300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>opt-in, opt-out, i don't really care. i just want this clusterfuck to end already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>opt-in , opt-out , i do n't really care .
i just want this clusterfuck to end already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>opt-in, opt-out, i don't really care.
i just want this clusterfuck to end already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977798</id>
	<title>Re:Communism!</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1264963800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your problem isn't with people like this guy. It's with politicians who have pushed copyright into the realms of insanity. If works expired in 14 years, they would probably survive to enter the public domain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your problem is n't with people like this guy .
It 's with politicians who have pushed copyright into the realms of insanity .
If works expired in 14 years , they would probably survive to enter the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your problem isn't with people like this guy.
It's with politicians who have pushed copyright into the realms of insanity.
If works expired in 14 years, they would probably survive to enter the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30982470</id>
	<title>Re:the reason it's opt-out</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1265045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, sorry, but that's how a class-action suit works. They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class, but if you don't see a notification, you're out of luck, and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else. Boo hoo. Go ahead and opt out.</p></div></blockquote><p>And that's pretty messed up.  A sues B, and they come to a settlement which extinguishes C's rights without his input.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , sorry , but that 's how a class-action suit works .
They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class , but if you do n't see a notification , you 're out of luck , and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else .
Boo hoo .
Go ahead and opt out.And that 's pretty messed up .
A sues B , and they come to a settlement which extinguishes C 's rights without his input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, sorry, but that's how a class-action suit works.
They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class, but if you don't see a notification, you're out of luck, and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else.
Boo hoo.
Go ahead and opt out.And that's pretty messed up.
A sues B, and they come to a settlement which extinguishes C's rights without his input.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977652</id>
	<title>Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1264962240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, if the author is receiving royalty payments then Google <i>isn't</i> going to scan their works and sell them. The opt-out provision only applies to works where the copyright holder is either unknown or not responding to contact attempts (the class of works referred to as "orphan works"). If as an author you've got works out there that Google won't be able to associate with you, it's your responsibility to tell Google about it. To me, that seems reasonable. The alternative is seeing a large body of work disappear because nobody can legally preserve it, which seems to me to be socially undesirable.</p><p>IMO the right response to the Indians is "OK then, what's <i>your</i> proposal for handling this? And it's got to allow for the preservation of orphan works in some fashion.".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , if the author is receiving royalty payments then Google is n't going to scan their works and sell them .
The opt-out provision only applies to works where the copyright holder is either unknown or not responding to contact attempts ( the class of works referred to as " orphan works " ) .
If as an author you 've got works out there that Google wo n't be able to associate with you , it 's your responsibility to tell Google about it .
To me , that seems reasonable .
The alternative is seeing a large body of work disappear because nobody can legally preserve it , which seems to me to be socially undesirable.IMO the right response to the Indians is " OK then , what 's your proposal for handling this ?
And it 's got to allow for the preservation of orphan works in some fashion .
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, if the author is receiving royalty payments then Google isn't going to scan their works and sell them.
The opt-out provision only applies to works where the copyright holder is either unknown or not responding to contact attempts (the class of works referred to as "orphan works").
If as an author you've got works out there that Google won't be able to associate with you, it's your responsibility to tell Google about it.
To me, that seems reasonable.
The alternative is seeing a large body of work disappear because nobody can legally preserve it, which seems to me to be socially undesirable.IMO the right response to the Indians is "OK then, what's your proposal for handling this?
And it's got to allow for the preservation of orphan works in some fashion.
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408</id>
	<title>Deciding</title>
	<author>Sanat</author>
	<datestamp>1264959840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what it would be like to have to decide whether to sell your book or information for a slight profit or have your information available for many individuals who could use it for their own purposes.</p><p>I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what it would be like to have to decide whether to sell your book or information for a slight profit or have your information available for many individuals who could use it for their own purposes.I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what it would be like to have to decide whether to sell your book or information for a slight profit or have your information available for many individuals who could use it for their own purposes.I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31028392</id>
	<title>Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265285220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but this is a particle with a spin of 1/2. You have to turn it around 360 degrees, until it&rsquo;s on its real opposite side (head).<br>180 degrees is still bad. Just in another direction.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but this is a particle with a spin of 1/2 .
You have to turn it around 360 degrees , until it    s on its real opposite side ( head ) .180 degrees is still bad .
Just in another direction .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but this is a particle with a spin of 1/2.
You have to turn it around 360 degrees, until it’s on its real opposite side (head).180 degrees is still bad.
Just in another direction.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977848</id>
	<title>Re:Communism!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264964580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy to call the publishers "Bloodsuckers" but you're missing the issue. As an author, I should NOT have to notify Google, or anybody else, that they can NOT use my copyrighted material. I already GAVE them my opt-out notice when I took out the copyright on the material to start with.</p><p>I'm all for preserving knowledge, but it can be done just as well without making it available for copying. Google can archive all the data on the planet for all I care, as long as they don't give my stuff away without me telling them they can. And I shouldn't have to run to a dozen, hundred, or million organizations to say they can't use it, if they want it, they can come to ME.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to call the publishers " Bloodsuckers " but you 're missing the issue .
As an author , I should NOT have to notify Google , or anybody else , that they can NOT use my copyrighted material .
I already GAVE them my opt-out notice when I took out the copyright on the material to start with.I 'm all for preserving knowledge , but it can be done just as well without making it available for copying .
Google can archive all the data on the planet for all I care , as long as they do n't give my stuff away without me telling them they can .
And I should n't have to run to a dozen , hundred , or million organizations to say they ca n't use it , if they want it , they can come to ME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to call the publishers "Bloodsuckers" but you're missing the issue.
As an author, I should NOT have to notify Google, or anybody else, that they can NOT use my copyrighted material.
I already GAVE them my opt-out notice when I took out the copyright on the material to start with.I'm all for preserving knowledge, but it can be done just as well without making it available for copying.
Google can archive all the data on the planet for all I care, as long as they don't give my stuff away without me telling them they can.
And I shouldn't have to run to a dozen, hundred, or million organizations to say they can't use it, if they want it, they can come to ME.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30988476</id>
	<title>Re:Communism!</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1265025000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem, as I see it, is that Google has a monopoly on this.  They had to break the law to get this monopoly, and it took both slick lawyers and a pliant "adversary", but they got a court to give them a global right to copy "orphaned" works that are still within copyright.</p><p>Now it's true, someone else could try the same game.  Break the law and see if their lawyers are slick enough and their "adversary" is pliant enough and the judge is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... I can't figure out HOW to categorize that judge.  If it all works out right, the Google would no longer have a monopoly.  Now it would be a duopoly.  But take a close look at that process, and see what you think of it.</p><p>I'm all in favor of rare and out-of-print books being preserved.  I just don't trust a monopoly to do the preservation for me.  Google's goals aren't the same as mine, even if they overlap in places.  I'd rather trust Gutenprint...but they were shut out of the deal.  So was everyone else except Google.  (I've heard that Google is going to subcontract producing hardcopies of their work to others, I haven't heard that they've done so.  And even if they did, as long as Google gets to act as a monopoly gatekeeper, I'm not going to trust the process.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem , as I see it , is that Google has a monopoly on this .
They had to break the law to get this monopoly , and it took both slick lawyers and a pliant " adversary " , but they got a court to give them a global right to copy " orphaned " works that are still within copyright.Now it 's true , someone else could try the same game .
Break the law and see if their lawyers are slick enough and their " adversary " is pliant enough and the judge is .... I ca n't figure out HOW to categorize that judge .
If it all works out right , the Google would no longer have a monopoly .
Now it would be a duopoly .
But take a close look at that process , and see what you think of it.I 'm all in favor of rare and out-of-print books being preserved .
I just do n't trust a monopoly to do the preservation for me .
Google 's goals are n't the same as mine , even if they overlap in places .
I 'd rather trust Gutenprint...but they were shut out of the deal .
So was everyone else except Google .
( I 've heard that Google is going to subcontract producing hardcopies of their work to others , I have n't heard that they 've done so .
And even if they did , as long as Google gets to act as a monopoly gatekeeper , I 'm not going to trust the process .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem, as I see it, is that Google has a monopoly on this.
They had to break the law to get this monopoly, and it took both slick lawyers and a pliant "adversary", but they got a court to give them a global right to copy "orphaned" works that are still within copyright.Now it's true, someone else could try the same game.
Break the law and see if their lawyers are slick enough and their "adversary" is pliant enough and the judge is .... I can't figure out HOW to categorize that judge.
If it all works out right, the Google would no longer have a monopoly.
Now it would be a duopoly.
But take a close look at that process, and see what you think of it.I'm all in favor of rare and out-of-print books being preserved.
I just don't trust a monopoly to do the preservation for me.
Google's goals aren't the same as mine, even if they overlap in places.
I'd rather trust Gutenprint...but they were shut out of the deal.
So was everyone else except Google.
(I've heard that Google is going to subcontract producing hardcopies of their work to others, I haven't heard that they've done so.
And even if they did, as long as Google gets to act as a monopoly gatekeeper, I'm not going to trust the process.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978940</id>
	<title>Top 5 Annoying Things about Indian Dudes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Staring Habit:</p><p>Males all over love to stare at women. Indian males love to keep staring at women. They&rsquo;ll stare you to death if they want to. You can try giving them &lsquo;the look&rsquo; in the eye but no use. Somehow their eyes are rock solid, on target. They scan you from top to bottom and left to right. Their dark eyes scan every inch of flesh on you.</p><p>The Stinking Habit:</p><p>Indian guys stink, to the core. Guys this is a a wake up call. I believe that guys think investing in a 100 buck deodorant hurts more than investing in stocks. Every time a guy walks by and I can feel that disgusting body odor. I wonder if you guys even hit the showers every day.</p><p>The Peeing on the streets Habit:</p><p>This is not new. At any given time there&rsquo;s an Indian guy peeing across the street in the public right in front of a sign that says, &ldquo;Yahaan peshaab karna mana hai&rdquo; meaning you can&rsquo;t pee here. Just because you guys can pee standing up doesn&rsquo;t mean you must pee everywhere. Use the public loo next time.</p><p>The Comment passing Habit:</p><p>Walk across a bunch of guys and your ears automatically gear up to pick up the sound signals. Every single woman in the country is so bloody used to these comments that it doesn&rsquo;t bother most of them anymore. Sexually unfulfilled, testosterone charged males would make all sorts of attempts to prove their worthiness out on the streets.</p><p>The Over-friendly Habit:</p><p>Indian males tend to become over-friendly for all kinds of reasons known to them. Go to a public place and drop a pin, hundreds of men jump out of nowhere and battle to get that pin back to you. Then they&rsquo;ll strike a conversation with you. They&rsquo;ll want to know all sorts of personal things about you. They just don&rsquo;t seem to stop. There&rsquo;s a fine line between being a gentleman and being uncomfortably friendly. Indian men cross the line as usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Staring Habit : Males all over love to stare at women .
Indian males love to keep staring at women .
They    ll stare you to death if they want to .
You can try giving them    the look    in the eye but no use .
Somehow their eyes are rock solid , on target .
They scan you from top to bottom and left to right .
Their dark eyes scan every inch of flesh on you.The Stinking Habit : Indian guys stink , to the core .
Guys this is a a wake up call .
I believe that guys think investing in a 100 buck deodorant hurts more than investing in stocks .
Every time a guy walks by and I can feel that disgusting body odor .
I wonder if you guys even hit the showers every day.The Peeing on the streets Habit : This is not new .
At any given time there    s an Indian guy peeing across the street in the public right in front of a sign that says ,    Yahaan peshaab karna mana hai    meaning you can    t pee here .
Just because you guys can pee standing up doesn    t mean you must pee everywhere .
Use the public loo next time.The Comment passing Habit : Walk across a bunch of guys and your ears automatically gear up to pick up the sound signals .
Every single woman in the country is so bloody used to these comments that it doesn    t bother most of them anymore .
Sexually unfulfilled , testosterone charged males would make all sorts of attempts to prove their worthiness out on the streets.The Over-friendly Habit : Indian males tend to become over-friendly for all kinds of reasons known to them .
Go to a public place and drop a pin , hundreds of men jump out of nowhere and battle to get that pin back to you .
Then they    ll strike a conversation with you .
They    ll want to know all sorts of personal things about you .
They just don    t seem to stop .
There    s a fine line between being a gentleman and being uncomfortably friendly .
Indian men cross the line as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Staring Habit:Males all over love to stare at women.
Indian males love to keep staring at women.
They’ll stare you to death if they want to.
You can try giving them ‘the look’ in the eye but no use.
Somehow their eyes are rock solid, on target.
They scan you from top to bottom and left to right.
Their dark eyes scan every inch of flesh on you.The Stinking Habit:Indian guys stink, to the core.
Guys this is a a wake up call.
I believe that guys think investing in a 100 buck deodorant hurts more than investing in stocks.
Every time a guy walks by and I can feel that disgusting body odor.
I wonder if you guys even hit the showers every day.The Peeing on the streets Habit:This is not new.
At any given time there’s an Indian guy peeing across the street in the public right in front of a sign that says, “Yahaan peshaab karna mana hai” meaning you can’t pee here.
Just because you guys can pee standing up doesn’t mean you must pee everywhere.
Use the public loo next time.The Comment passing Habit:Walk across a bunch of guys and your ears automatically gear up to pick up the sound signals.
Every single woman in the country is so bloody used to these comments that it doesn’t bother most of them anymore.
Sexually unfulfilled, testosterone charged males would make all sorts of attempts to prove their worthiness out on the streets.The Over-friendly Habit:Indian males tend to become over-friendly for all kinds of reasons known to them.
Go to a public place and drop a pin, hundreds of men jump out of nowhere and battle to get that pin back to you.
Then they’ll strike a conversation with you.
They’ll want to know all sorts of personal things about you.
They just don’t seem to stop.
There’s a fine line between being a gentleman and being uncomfortably friendly.
Indian men cross the line as usual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977684</id>
	<title>Re:Deciding</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1264962600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.</p></div><p>Like Google, you mean?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.Like Google , you mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.Like Google, you mean?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30994482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31000492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30993770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30983702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30992498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31020108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30988738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30982470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30984122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31028392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30986494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30988476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_020247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30994482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30986494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31028392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30982470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30983702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31020108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.31000492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30992498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30988738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30984122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30988476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30981236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_020247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30978146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30979042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30980642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30993770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_020247.30977462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
