<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_05_1340258</id>
	<title>Once Again, US DoJ Opposes Google Book Search</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265378220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> and several other readers passed along the news that the <a href="http://searchengineland.com/us-court-lacks-authority-to-approve-google-book-search-amended-settlement-agreement-35204">US Department of Justice has come out against the revised agreement</a> to settle copyright lawsuits brought against Google by authors and publishers. This is a major blow to Google's efforts to build a massive digital-books marketplace and library. From <a href="http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended\_settlement/usa.pdf">the DoJ filing</a> (PDF): <i>"...the [Amended Settlement Agreement] suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation. As a consequence, the ASA purports to grant legal rights that are difficult to square with the core principle of the Copyright Act that copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright. Those rights, in turn, confer significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity &mdash; Google."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir and several other readers passed along the news that the US Department of Justice has come out against the revised agreement to settle copyright lawsuits brought against Google by authors and publishers .
This is a major blow to Google 's efforts to build a massive digital-books marketplace and library .
From the DoJ filing ( PDF ) : " ...the [ Amended Settlement Agreement ] suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement : it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation .
As a consequence , the ASA purports to grant legal rights that are difficult to square with the core principle of the Copyright Act that copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright .
Those rights , in turn , confer significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity    Google .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir and several other readers passed along the news that the US Department of Justice has come out against the revised agreement to settle copyright lawsuits brought against Google by authors and publishers.
This is a major blow to Google's efforts to build a massive digital-books marketplace and library.
From the DoJ filing (PDF): "...the [Amended Settlement Agreement] suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation.
As a consequence, the ASA purports to grant legal rights that are difficult to square with the core principle of the Copyright Act that copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright.
Those rights, in turn, confer significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity — Google.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31038278</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265402640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Property laws and Copyright laws are mutually exclusive.</p></div> </blockquote><p>If that was true, you couldn't have both copyright laws and property laws, which is obviously untrue.</p><p>You probably mean that property laws and copyright laws are disjoint sets, such that no copyright law is a property law and vice versa, but this is also untrue. Copyright laws are a subset of intellectual property laws (along with, e.g., patent laws), which are a subset of intangible personal property laws (along with, e.g., laws governing securities), which are in turn a subset of personal property laws (along with laws governing <i>tangible</i> personal property), which are in turn a subset of property laws (along with laws governing real property.)</p><blockquote><div><p>We could completely nullify all copyrights without having any effect on property laws whatsoever.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is quite clearly false, since all copyright laws <i>are</i> property laws (though not all property laws are copyright laws), so any change to any copyright law is also a change to a property law.</p><blockquote><div><p>There is no need for intellectual property anymore. Information is moving and changing to fast.</p></div></blockquote><p>One might make a coherent argument that we need <i>different</i> intellectual property laws for this reason, but I don't see a coherent argument that we don't need intellectual property stemming from the pace of information moving and changing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Property laws and Copyright laws are mutually exclusive .
If that was true , you could n't have both copyright laws and property laws , which is obviously untrue.You probably mean that property laws and copyright laws are disjoint sets , such that no copyright law is a property law and vice versa , but this is also untrue .
Copyright laws are a subset of intellectual property laws ( along with , e.g. , patent laws ) , which are a subset of intangible personal property laws ( along with , e.g. , laws governing securities ) , which are in turn a subset of personal property laws ( along with laws governing tangible personal property ) , which are in turn a subset of property laws ( along with laws governing real property .
) We could completely nullify all copyrights without having any effect on property laws whatsoever.This is quite clearly false , since all copyright laws are property laws ( though not all property laws are copyright laws ) , so any change to any copyright law is also a change to a property law.There is no need for intellectual property anymore .
Information is moving and changing to fast.One might make a coherent argument that we need different intellectual property laws for this reason , but I do n't see a coherent argument that we do n't need intellectual property stemming from the pace of information moving and changing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Property laws and Copyright laws are mutually exclusive.
If that was true, you couldn't have both copyright laws and property laws, which is obviously untrue.You probably mean that property laws and copyright laws are disjoint sets, such that no copyright law is a property law and vice versa, but this is also untrue.
Copyright laws are a subset of intellectual property laws (along with, e.g., patent laws), which are a subset of intangible personal property laws (along with, e.g., laws governing securities), which are in turn a subset of personal property laws (along with laws governing tangible personal property), which are in turn a subset of property laws (along with laws governing real property.
)We could completely nullify all copyrights without having any effect on property laws whatsoever.This is quite clearly false, since all copyright laws are property laws (though not all property laws are copyright laws), so any change to any copyright law is also a change to a property law.There is no need for intellectual property anymore.
Information is moving and changing to fast.One might make a coherent argument that we need different intellectual property laws for this reason, but I don't see a coherent argument that we don't need intellectual property stemming from the pace of information moving and changing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034162</id>
	<title>Slashdot hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Slashdot, IP is "phony" property - unless it's someone violating the GPL, then IP is a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Slashdot , IP is " phony " property - unless it 's someone violating the GPL , then IP is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Slashdot, IP is "phony" property - unless it's someone violating the GPL, then IP is a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034340</id>
	<title>Opt-In Copyright?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265384700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't these guys introduce some required opt-in copyright for works older than say 25 years? Make the renewal 20 years long and put a US$5 price on it.</p><p>Lawrence Lessig has been arguing for something like this for years... it would solve the orphaned works problem, and Disney probably wouldn't care, so they actually might let it happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't these guys introduce some required opt-in copyright for works older than say 25 years ?
Make the renewal 20 years long and put a US $ 5 price on it.Lawrence Lessig has been arguing for something like this for years... it would solve the orphaned works problem , and Disney probably would n't care , so they actually might let it happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't these guys introduce some required opt-in copyright for works older than say 25 years?
Make the renewal 20 years long and put a US$5 price on it.Lawrence Lessig has been arguing for something like this for years... it would solve the orphaned works problem, and Disney probably wouldn't care, so they actually might let it happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31043670</id>
	<title>Abandonware, and Library Fires</title>
	<author>oneshotwonder</author>
	<datestamp>1265396880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a video game enthusiast, and have been for some time(28 years old).  There are now loads of games that I played a young kid that are now 'abandonware'.  So, these games can be downloaded and enjoyed for free.

When I hear in the news and read online about Google and 'orphaned' work, I'm reminded of all the abandoware games I've enjoyed playing.

Let Google scan the books, maybe they'll archive abandoned games next.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a video game enthusiast , and have been for some time ( 28 years old ) .
There are now loads of games that I played a young kid that are now 'abandonware' .
So , these games can be downloaded and enjoyed for free .
When I hear in the news and read online about Google and 'orphaned ' work , I 'm reminded of all the abandoware games I 've enjoyed playing .
Let Google scan the books , maybe they 'll archive abandoned games next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a video game enthusiast, and have been for some time(28 years old).
There are now loads of games that I played a young kid that are now 'abandonware'.
So, these games can be downloaded and enjoyed for free.
When I hear in the news and read online about Google and 'orphaned' work, I'm reminded of all the abandoware games I've enjoyed playing.
Let Google scan the books, maybe they'll archive abandoned games next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31044260</id>
	<title>Public Trustee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265452260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there not a Public Trustee kind of thing in the US? The UK and New Zealand have a system where a government department is put in charge of deceased persons' and minors' property when no suitable person can be found.</p><p>Could the US not just establish some kind of copyright default office or something where the unclaimed copyright automatically becomes the responsibility of the state, and where original owners can claim it back if they wish? With appropriate plugs for legal gaps, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there not a Public Trustee kind of thing in the US ?
The UK and New Zealand have a system where a government department is put in charge of deceased persons ' and minors ' property when no suitable person can be found.Could the US not just establish some kind of copyright default office or something where the unclaimed copyright automatically becomes the responsibility of the state , and where original owners can claim it back if they wish ?
With appropriate plugs for legal gaps , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there not a Public Trustee kind of thing in the US?
The UK and New Zealand have a system where a government department is put in charge of deceased persons' and minors' property when no suitable person can be found.Could the US not just establish some kind of copyright default office or something where the unclaimed copyright automatically becomes the responsibility of the state, and where original owners can claim it back if they wish?
With appropriate plugs for legal gaps, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034596</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265386080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright laws which rely on creating artificial scarcity need to die. Compulsory "mass media" licenses like this are a step down that inevitable path.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright laws which rely on creating artificial scarcity need to die .
Compulsory " mass media " licenses like this are a step down that inevitable path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright laws which rely on creating artificial scarcity need to die.
Compulsory "mass media" licenses like this are a step down that inevitable path.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31044214</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>NorthernerWuwu</author>
	<datestamp>1265451540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hang on a minute now.

Property Law and Copyright Law (and by extension Intellectual Property Law de jure) are entangled in many ways. Property has always been held as the highest function of law in Western society and with some cause but to pretend that Copyright laws are simply unrelated is disingenuous. If the only property I can hold is physical, modern society is in for a lot of hurt and apparently what I spend my days doing holds no value.

I understand your position and to some degree can even sympathize but your initial premise is terribly flawed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hang on a minute now .
Property Law and Copyright Law ( and by extension Intellectual Property Law de jure ) are entangled in many ways .
Property has always been held as the highest function of law in Western society and with some cause but to pretend that Copyright laws are simply unrelated is disingenuous .
If the only property I can hold is physical , modern society is in for a lot of hurt and apparently what I spend my days doing holds no value .
I understand your position and to some degree can even sympathize but your initial premise is terribly flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hang on a minute now.
Property Law and Copyright Law (and by extension Intellectual Property Law de jure) are entangled in many ways.
Property has always been held as the highest function of law in Western society and with some cause but to pretend that Copyright laws are simply unrelated is disingenuous.
If the only property I can hold is physical, modern society is in for a lot of hurt and apparently what I spend my days doing holds no value.
I understand your position and to some degree can even sympathize but your initial premise is terribly flawed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1265383020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Property laws and Copyright laws are mutually exclusive.  We could completely nullify all copyrights without having any effect on property laws whatsoever.<br>
<br>
There is no need for intellectual property anymore.  Information is moving and changing to fast.  If you lock something up in a patent or have it copyrighted derivative works are set back half a generation or more.  Intellectual property laws need a full overhaul to address the change in technology and how information is spread.  Personally I don't believe we need any intellectual property restrictions at all; I believe they do more harm than good.  I believe that people could fully share all knowledge with each other and that there would still be a market for using that knowledge as a service or to produce a good.  I think we should still cite the original creators of the knowledge, but that it should be free to all.  We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Property laws and Copyright laws are mutually exclusive .
We could completely nullify all copyrights without having any effect on property laws whatsoever .
There is no need for intellectual property anymore .
Information is moving and changing to fast .
If you lock something up in a patent or have it copyrighted derivative works are set back half a generation or more .
Intellectual property laws need a full overhaul to address the change in technology and how information is spread .
Personally I do n't believe we need any intellectual property restrictions at all ; I believe they do more harm than good .
I believe that people could fully share all knowledge with each other and that there would still be a market for using that knowledge as a service or to produce a good .
I think we should still cite the original creators of the knowledge , but that it should be free to all .
We should give credit to the authors of knowledge , but at the same time they should n't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Property laws and Copyright laws are mutually exclusive.
We could completely nullify all copyrights without having any effect on property laws whatsoever.
There is no need for intellectual property anymore.
Information is moving and changing to fast.
If you lock something up in a patent or have it copyrighted derivative works are set back half a generation or more.
Intellectual property laws need a full overhaul to address the change in technology and how information is spread.
Personally I don't believe we need any intellectual property restrictions at all; I believe they do more harm than good.
I believe that people could fully share all knowledge with each other and that there would still be a market for using that knowledge as a service or to produce a good.
I think we should still cite the original creators of the knowledge, but that it should be free to all.
We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31043712</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1265397540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing about Google and all this stuff they are doing...with exceptions being the Street Level Photos, Insides of Public Buildings, and (when it comes to authors) this Google Books fiasco...you don't have to participate in.  You can use a different search Engine.  You can block Google from crawling your site.  You can use hotmail, yahoo, your ISP E-Mail, or some other free or pay service.  You do not need to use Google Docs, Google Calender, Google Whatevertheycallmedical, or Google whatevertheycallfinancials.  There are alternatives to the Google Phone and Google Groups.  There are crappy video clips other places than YouTube.  In essence, Google is pretty much Opt-In.</p><p>"But Google is the best search engine!", "Gmail is the best free mail system", "YouTube has the most videos!".  Yup.  And guess what? You can use all of these services as often as you want, free of monetary charge to you.  To provide these services Google does need something in return.  That something is your privacy.</p><p>I think at times people forget the reality that Google is a For-Profit Corporation employing people who expect a paycheck in return for their work.  It seems some have this idea that Google has always been a version of Linus Torvalds and the thousands of volunteers that have produced an impressive array of software for free.  They never were that.  They've been "violating your privacy" to some degree since day 1.  It is just now, that they have grown so much and have access to that much more of your personal information, that you have stood up and took notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing about Google and all this stuff they are doing...with exceptions being the Street Level Photos , Insides of Public Buildings , and ( when it comes to authors ) this Google Books fiasco...you do n't have to participate in .
You can use a different search Engine .
You can block Google from crawling your site .
You can use hotmail , yahoo , your ISP E-Mail , or some other free or pay service .
You do not need to use Google Docs , Google Calender , Google Whatevertheycallmedical , or Google whatevertheycallfinancials .
There are alternatives to the Google Phone and Google Groups .
There are crappy video clips other places than YouTube .
In essence , Google is pretty much Opt-In .
" But Google is the best search engine !
" , " Gmail is the best free mail system " , " YouTube has the most videos ! " .
Yup. And guess what ?
You can use all of these services as often as you want , free of monetary charge to you .
To provide these services Google does need something in return .
That something is your privacy.I think at times people forget the reality that Google is a For-Profit Corporation employing people who expect a paycheck in return for their work .
It seems some have this idea that Google has always been a version of Linus Torvalds and the thousands of volunteers that have produced an impressive array of software for free .
They never were that .
They 've been " violating your privacy " to some degree since day 1 .
It is just now , that they have grown so much and have access to that much more of your personal information , that you have stood up and took notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing about Google and all this stuff they are doing...with exceptions being the Street Level Photos, Insides of Public Buildings, and (when it comes to authors) this Google Books fiasco...you don't have to participate in.
You can use a different search Engine.
You can block Google from crawling your site.
You can use hotmail, yahoo, your ISP E-Mail, or some other free or pay service.
You do not need to use Google Docs, Google Calender, Google Whatevertheycallmedical, or Google whatevertheycallfinancials.
There are alternatives to the Google Phone and Google Groups.
There are crappy video clips other places than YouTube.
In essence, Google is pretty much Opt-In.
"But Google is the best search engine!
", "Gmail is the best free mail system", "YouTube has the most videos!".
Yup.  And guess what?
You can use all of these services as often as you want, free of monetary charge to you.
To provide these services Google does need something in return.
That something is your privacy.I think at times people forget the reality that Google is a For-Profit Corporation employing people who expect a paycheck in return for their work.
It seems some have this idea that Google has always been a version of Linus Torvalds and the thousands of volunteers that have produced an impressive array of software for free.
They never were that.
They've been "violating your privacy" to some degree since day 1.
It is just now, that they have grown so much and have access to that much more of your personal information, that you have stood up and took notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034698</id>
	<title>This the same DoJ</title>
	<author>BitterAndDrunk</author>
	<datestamp>1265386680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That thought a merger between LiveNation and Ticketmaster wouldn't constitute a trust.<p>
These fuckers are not only corrupt, but shamelessly corrupt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That thought a merger between LiveNation and Ticketmaster would n't constitute a trust .
These fuckers are not only corrupt , but shamelessly corrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That thought a merger between LiveNation and Ticketmaster wouldn't constitute a trust.
These fuckers are not only corrupt, but shamelessly corrupt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035488</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265390880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them? Many see them as an invasion of privacy."<br>
And clean water and electricity and cars and computers and..... What a blatantly stupid argument!<br> <br>
"It took being bitten by the hand that fed them to finally come out againt their own willingness to censor in China, but still show a willingness to cowtow to political and well connected interests."<br>They did better than every single other competitor out there.<br> <br>
"As for books and other media, this should be a opt in system rather than an opt out. If spam was opt out many more would be protesting but its violation is the same."<br>This is IMPOSSIBLE to do with orphaned books, we don't know, no one know who the hell owns the rights, possibly no one. And spam IS opt-out.<br> <br>And do feel free to adblock and not use gmail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces , do we really need them ?
Many see them as an invasion of privacy .
" And clean water and electricity and cars and computers and..... What a blatantly stupid argument !
" It took being bitten by the hand that fed them to finally come out againt their own willingness to censor in China , but still show a willingness to cowtow to political and well connected interests .
" They did better than every single other competitor out there .
" As for books and other media , this should be a opt in system rather than an opt out .
If spam was opt out many more would be protesting but its violation is the same .
" This is IMPOSSIBLE to do with orphaned books , we do n't know , no one know who the hell owns the rights , possibly no one .
And spam IS opt-out .
And do feel free to adblock and not use gmail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?
Many see them as an invasion of privacy.
"
And clean water and electricity and cars and computers and..... What a blatantly stupid argument!
"It took being bitten by the hand that fed them to finally come out againt their own willingness to censor in China, but still show a willingness to cowtow to political and well connected interests.
"They did better than every single other competitor out there.
"As for books and other media, this should be a opt in system rather than an opt out.
If spam was opt out many more would be protesting but its violation is the same.
"This is IMPOSSIBLE to do with orphaned books, we don't know, no one know who the hell owns the rights, possibly no one.
And spam IS opt-out.
And do feel free to adblock and not use gmail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31037536</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265399520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?</i></p><p>Jesus H. Christ, you sound like my 78 year old dad. We lived thousands of years without computers, telephones, electricity, automobiles, airplanes, and indoor plumbing, do we really need them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces , do we really need them ? Jesus H. Christ , you sound like my 78 year old dad .
We lived thousands of years without computers , telephones , electricity , automobiles , airplanes , and indoor plumbing , do we really need them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?Jesus H. Christ, you sound like my 78 year old dad.
We lived thousands of years without computers, telephones, electricity, automobiles, airplanes, and indoor plumbing, do we really need them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034454</id>
	<title>I got it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265385300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need only to declare that we are the copyright-holders of our private information.</p><p>The DoJ will get stuck trying to decide whether to favor the copyright holders or screw over the privacy advocates (who are the same person), and promptly implode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need only to declare that we are the copyright-holders of our private information.The DoJ will get stuck trying to decide whether to favor the copyright holders or screw over the privacy advocates ( who are the same person ) , and promptly implode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need only to declare that we are the copyright-holders of our private information.The DoJ will get stuck trying to decide whether to favor the copyright holders or screw over the privacy advocates (who are the same person), and promptly implode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31037158</id>
	<title>Monopolistic Practices</title>
	<author>dawilcox</author>
	<datestamp>1265397780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should all give the government a round of applause for bringing the crackdown on Microsoft, a terribly monopolistic organization, and their terrible practices.<p>
Oh wait. This is Google and not Microsoft?
</p><p>
I can't believe that the government is meddling in the affairs of businesses. What happened to Laissez-faire economics? This is an outrage!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should all give the government a round of applause for bringing the crackdown on Microsoft , a terribly monopolistic organization , and their terrible practices .
Oh wait .
This is Google and not Microsoft ?
I ca n't believe that the government is meddling in the affairs of businesses .
What happened to Laissez-faire economics ?
This is an outrage !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should all give the government a round of applause for bringing the crackdown on Microsoft, a terribly monopolistic organization, and their terrible practices.
Oh wait.
This is Google and not Microsoft?
I can't believe that the government is meddling in the affairs of businesses.
What happened to Laissez-faire economics?
This is an outrage!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31067040</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265632320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their motto is "Don't be evil", not "Do no evil", there's a subtle difference between the two phrases.</p><p>Also all spam is at best opt-out, there is no such thing as opt-in spam, because if you request something it isn't spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their motto is " Do n't be evil " , not " Do no evil " , there 's a subtle difference between the two phrases.Also all spam is at best opt-out , there is no such thing as opt-in spam , because if you request something it is n't spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their motto is "Don't be evil", not "Do no evil", there's a subtle difference between the two phrases.Also all spam is at best opt-out, there is no such thing as opt-in spam, because if you request something it isn't spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31039440</id>
	<title>Convoluted Crud</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265364600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Blow the copyright laws into the ditch. It is a flawed and screwy concept. That which is distributed loses any facility to be private in any way. If people really want "rights" over such property they should keep their literary and musical creations to themselves. Art is not supposed to be about money at all. They are turning artistic products into commercial products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blow the copyright laws into the ditch .
It is a flawed and screwy concept .
That which is distributed loses any facility to be private in any way .
If people really want " rights " over such property they should keep their literary and musical creations to themselves .
Art is not supposed to be about money at all .
They are turning artistic products into commercial products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Blow the copyright laws into the ditch.
It is a flawed and screwy concept.
That which is distributed loses any facility to be private in any way.
If people really want "rights" over such property they should keep their literary and musical creations to themselves.
Art is not supposed to be about money at all.
They are turning artistic products into commercial products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034588</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which sounds remarkably similar to Sound Exchange collecting streaming audio royalty payments for all musicians, and not just those associated with RIAA/ASCAP</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which sounds remarkably similar to Sound Exchange collecting streaming audio royalty payments for all musicians , and not just those associated with RIAA/ASCAP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which sounds remarkably similar to Sound Exchange collecting streaming audio royalty payments for all musicians, and not just those associated with RIAA/ASCAP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034700</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?</p></div></blockquote><p>

We also lived for thousands of years without the Internet, telephone, electricity, and sanitary sewers.  What's your point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces , do we really need them ?
We also lived for thousands of years without the Internet , telephone , electricity , and sanitary sewers .
What 's your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?
We also lived for thousands of years without the Internet, telephone, electricity, and sanitary sewers.
What's your point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246</id>
	<title>Do no evil</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1265384040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somewhere along the way Google forgot one of its own rules.  Their subtle yet ever encroaching methods of "helping" the world seem more of an attempt to ensure that google is firmly entrenched in every aspect of our daily lives.  IMHO their approach is just wrong.  We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?  Many see them as an invasion of privacy.</p><p>I'm already concerned about google wanting to control the storage and distribution of medical records, financial records and other areas they seem determined to control.</p><p>It took being bitten by the hand that fed them to finally come out againt their own willingness to censor in China, but still show a willingness to cowtow to political and well connected interests.</p><p>Their gmail, adsense, and cookie policies are well lets just say less than privacy friendly.</p><p>As for books and other media, this should be a opt in system rather than an opt out.  If spam was opt out many more would be protesting but its violation is the same.  Many argue its to protect media that would be lost in the future, but the proper fix for that is to change laws not skirt around them because your some big coporation.</p><p>I just dont see how "do no evil" and a great desire to become big brother can peacefully co-exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere along the way Google forgot one of its own rules .
Their subtle yet ever encroaching methods of " helping " the world seem more of an attempt to ensure that google is firmly entrenched in every aspect of our daily lives .
IMHO their approach is just wrong .
We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces , do we really need them ?
Many see them as an invasion of privacy.I 'm already concerned about google wanting to control the storage and distribution of medical records , financial records and other areas they seem determined to control.It took being bitten by the hand that fed them to finally come out againt their own willingness to censor in China , but still show a willingness to cowtow to political and well connected interests.Their gmail , adsense , and cookie policies are well lets just say less than privacy friendly.As for books and other media , this should be a opt in system rather than an opt out .
If spam was opt out many more would be protesting but its violation is the same .
Many argue its to protect media that would be lost in the future , but the proper fix for that is to change laws not skirt around them because your some big coporation.I just dont see how " do no evil " and a great desire to become big brother can peacefully co-exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere along the way Google forgot one of its own rules.
Their subtle yet ever encroaching methods of "helping" the world seem more of an attempt to ensure that google is firmly entrenched in every aspect of our daily lives.
IMHO their approach is just wrong.
We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?
Many see them as an invasion of privacy.I'm already concerned about google wanting to control the storage and distribution of medical records, financial records and other areas they seem determined to control.It took being bitten by the hand that fed them to finally come out againt their own willingness to censor in China, but still show a willingness to cowtow to political and well connected interests.Their gmail, adsense, and cookie policies are well lets just say less than privacy friendly.As for books and other media, this should be a opt in system rather than an opt out.
If spam was opt out many more would be protesting but its violation is the same.
Many argue its to protect media that would be lost in the future, but the proper fix for that is to change laws not skirt around them because your some big coporation.I just dont see how "do no evil" and a great desire to become big brother can peacefully co-exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31036158</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1265393520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For starters, there would be no drug research without intellectual property.  No, drug companies aren't saints, but developing and testing a drug is phenomenally expensive, if they had to compete with the generics from the word go they'd just shut down.  Medical breakthroughs are pretty important.</p><p>Intellectual property encompass trademarks, if I'm at the grocery store and I want to buy some Glad (tm) trashbags, it's because I don't want the store brand ones.  If the store could duplicate Glad's packaging I wouldn't know what I'm getting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For starters , there would be no drug research without intellectual property .
No , drug companies are n't saints , but developing and testing a drug is phenomenally expensive , if they had to compete with the generics from the word go they 'd just shut down .
Medical breakthroughs are pretty important.Intellectual property encompass trademarks , if I 'm at the grocery store and I want to buy some Glad ( tm ) trashbags , it 's because I do n't want the store brand ones .
If the store could duplicate Glad 's packaging I would n't know what I 'm getting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For starters, there would be no drug research without intellectual property.
No, drug companies aren't saints, but developing and testing a drug is phenomenally expensive, if they had to compete with the generics from the word go they'd just shut down.
Medical breakthroughs are pretty important.Intellectual property encompass trademarks, if I'm at the grocery store and I want to buy some Glad (tm) trashbags, it's because I don't want the store brand ones.
If the store could duplicate Glad's packaging I wouldn't know what I'm getting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31036022</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1265392860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all of this is inevitable why argue for it? If it's inevitable it will happen no matter what.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all of this is inevitable why argue for it ?
If it 's inevitable it will happen no matter what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all of this is inevitable why argue for it?
If it's inevitable it will happen no matter what.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035144</id>
	<title>The last $$ I will earn from my out of print books</title>
	<author>ooutland</author>
	<datestamp>1265389200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will come from the Google Book Settlement, into which I've "opted in."  Call me naive but I don't see how it would benefit me or anyone else to see those books remain in their static state, unavailable save as used books, from which sales I never see a dime.  IANA Lawyer but I don't see why Google couldn't break this up into waves, wherein all of us who've opted in can get our checks now and start earning any "royalties" available through search, and leave the disputed rights and claimants for another day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will come from the Google Book Settlement , into which I 've " opted in .
" Call me naive but I do n't see how it would benefit me or anyone else to see those books remain in their static state , unavailable save as used books , from which sales I never see a dime .
IANA Lawyer but I do n't see why Google could n't break this up into waves , wherein all of us who 've opted in can get our checks now and start earning any " royalties " available through search , and leave the disputed rights and claimants for another day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will come from the Google Book Settlement, into which I've "opted in.
"  Call me naive but I don't see how it would benefit me or anyone else to see those books remain in their static state, unavailable save as used books, from which sales I never see a dime.
IANA Lawyer but I don't see why Google couldn't break this up into waves, wherein all of us who've opted in can get our checks now and start earning any "royalties" available through search, and leave the disputed rights and claimants for another day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932</id>
	<title>Yay!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265381880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huzzah for delaying the inevitable future, fuckwads!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huzzah for delaying the inevitable future , fuckwads !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huzzah for delaying the inevitable future, fuckwads!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035620</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>AnotherUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1265391480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you will start working to destroy the GPL, then, right?  Because the GPL still protects intellectual property.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you will start working to destroy the GPL , then , right ?
Because the GPL still protects intellectual property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you will start working to destroy the GPL, then, right?
Because the GPL still protects intellectual property.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31038114</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is no need for intellectual property anymore</i></p><p>This "property" doesn't belong to the copyright holder, it belongs to the public. The copyright holder holds a limited time monopoly on its publication, but we retain ownership. It's like a rented house -- you have a limited time monopoly on its use, but you don't own it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no need for intellectual property anymoreThis " property " does n't belong to the copyright holder , it belongs to the public .
The copyright holder holds a limited time monopoly on its publication , but we retain ownership .
It 's like a rented house -- you have a limited time monopoly on its use , but you do n't own it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no need for intellectual property anymoreThis "property" doesn't belong to the copyright holder, it belongs to the public.
The copyright holder holds a limited time monopoly on its publication, but we retain ownership.
It's like a rented house -- you have a limited time monopoly on its use, but you don't own it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31040276</id>
	<title>Re:The last $$ I will earn from my out of print bo</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1265368380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was unaware of any compensation for authors that Google was proposing - the settlement leaves the door open to some type of compensation in the future as well as leaving the door open to sales of the books by Google or their authorized agents.</p><p>But any revenue derived from showing the content of the books online would be Google's compensation for scanning the books and hosting them.</p><p>I think that is one of the huge problems a lot of people have with this is that Google is simply appropriating the content and deriving revenue (ads) from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was unaware of any compensation for authors that Google was proposing - the settlement leaves the door open to some type of compensation in the future as well as leaving the door open to sales of the books by Google or their authorized agents.But any revenue derived from showing the content of the books online would be Google 's compensation for scanning the books and hosting them.I think that is one of the huge problems a lot of people have with this is that Google is simply appropriating the content and deriving revenue ( ads ) from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was unaware of any compensation for authors that Google was proposing - the settlement leaves the door open to some type of compensation in the future as well as leaving the door open to sales of the books by Google or their authorized agents.But any revenue derived from showing the content of the books online would be Google's compensation for scanning the books and hosting them.I think that is one of the huge problems a lot of people have with this is that Google is simply appropriating the content and deriving revenue (ads) from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31037250</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1265398140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?"</p><p>We don't "need" anything past living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (it worked for thousands of years!) but the convenience of easily accessing such already public information is tremendous.</p><p>Street View is very handy for quickly finding my precise destination and for sending directions to others by screencap. I've even used it for going to pick up junk cars. (Pull up address, switch to satellite view, ask owner where car is sitting, refine location via Street View, print map and go get vehicle. It's fast, it's easy, and beats the shit out of driving around asking for directions!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces , do we really need them ?
" We do n't " need " anything past living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle ( it worked for thousands of years !
) but the convenience of easily accessing such already public information is tremendous.Street View is very handy for quickly finding my precise destination and for sending directions to others by screencap .
I 've even used it for going to pick up junk cars .
( Pull up address , switch to satellite view , ask owner where car is sitting , refine location via Street View , print map and go get vehicle .
It 's fast , it 's easy , and beats the shit out of driving around asking for directions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?
"We don't "need" anything past living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (it worked for thousands of years!
) but the convenience of easily accessing such already public information is tremendous.Street View is very handy for quickly finding my precise destination and for sending directions to others by screencap.
I've even used it for going to pick up junk cars.
(Pull up address, switch to satellite view, ask owner where car is sitting, refine location via Street View, print map and go get vehicle.
It's fast, it's easy, and beats the shit out of driving around asking for directions!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1265382180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The inevitable future being what?  That of one where anyone can circumvent copyright (or indeed any other property law by extension) by making an agreement with a body that purports to represent an entire industry, but has no agreement with most of those supposedly represented?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The inevitable future being what ?
That of one where anyone can circumvent copyright ( or indeed any other property law by extension ) by making an agreement with a body that purports to represent an entire industry , but has no agreement with most of those supposedly represented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inevitable future being what?
That of one where anyone can circumvent copyright (or indeed any other property law by extension) by making an agreement with a body that purports to represent an entire industry, but has no agreement with most of those supposedly represented?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035496</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1265390880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.</em></p><p>First off, "knowledge" isn't held captive in any creative writer's depiction.  It exists independent of any particular depiction, and can be re-expressed by somebody else without any form of copyright violation.</p><p>So trumpet your diatribe about the 'horrible plight of knowledge held captive to the evil creator' somewhere that people don't think as clearly as we do here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should give credit to the authors of knowledge , but at the same time they should n't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.First off , " knowledge " is n't held captive in any creative writer 's depiction .
It exists independent of any particular depiction , and can be re-expressed by somebody else without any form of copyright violation.So trumpet your diatribe about the 'horrible plight of knowledge held captive to the evil creator ' somewhere that people do n't think as clearly as we do here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.First off, "knowledge" isn't held captive in any creative writer's depiction.
It exists independent of any particular depiction, and can be re-expressed by somebody else without any form of copyright violation.So trumpet your diatribe about the 'horrible plight of knowledge held captive to the evil creator' somewhere that people don't think as clearly as we do here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034954</id>
	<title>I'm confused.</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1265388180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Google... am I supposed to be mad at them or mad at the government?  Couldn't the NSA help them?  This is all so much easier when Apple does it first, because then I know I'm supposed to like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Google... am I supposed to be mad at them or mad at the government ?
Could n't the NSA help them ?
This is all so much easier when Apple does it first , because then I know I 'm supposed to like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Google... am I supposed to be mad at them or mad at the government?
Couldn't the NSA help them?
This is all so much easier when Apple does it first, because then I know I'm supposed to like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31038884</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265362140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oops,sorry, hit "submit" when I meant to hit "preview".</p><p><i>If you lock something up in a patent or have it copyrighted derivative works are set back half a generation or more.</i></p><p>Not patents; they only last twenty years. If patents lasted as long as copyright, technological progress would come to a standstill. Like technology, art is built on what has come before it.</p><p><i>I believe that people could fully share all knowledge with each other and that there would still be a market for using that knowledge as a service or to produce a good. I think we should still cite the original creators of the knowledge, but that it should be free to all.</i></p><p>The purpose of patents and copyrights is to encourage the creation of new works. I'm not likely to spend billions researching a new drug if anybody can sell that drug without royalties; I'd go broke in no time, as I'd have no way to recoup the cost of the research. There's a lot wrong with current patent law, but the need for it exists. The same with copyright law. IMO copyrights should last no longer than patents, and noncommercial use should be legal.</p><p><i>We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.</i></p><p>You can't copyright knowledge, only its expression. If you take a copyright work and put that knowledge down in your own words, you will hold copyright to the new expression of that knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops,sorry , hit " submit " when I meant to hit " preview " .If you lock something up in a patent or have it copyrighted derivative works are set back half a generation or more.Not patents ; they only last twenty years .
If patents lasted as long as copyright , technological progress would come to a standstill .
Like technology , art is built on what has come before it.I believe that people could fully share all knowledge with each other and that there would still be a market for using that knowledge as a service or to produce a good .
I think we should still cite the original creators of the knowledge , but that it should be free to all.The purpose of patents and copyrights is to encourage the creation of new works .
I 'm not likely to spend billions researching a new drug if anybody can sell that drug without royalties ; I 'd go broke in no time , as I 'd have no way to recoup the cost of the research .
There 's a lot wrong with current patent law , but the need for it exists .
The same with copyright law .
IMO copyrights should last no longer than patents , and noncommercial use should be legal.We should give credit to the authors of knowledge , but at the same time they should n't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.You ca n't copyright knowledge , only its expression .
If you take a copyright work and put that knowledge down in your own words , you will hold copyright to the new expression of that knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops,sorry, hit "submit" when I meant to hit "preview".If you lock something up in a patent or have it copyrighted derivative works are set back half a generation or more.Not patents; they only last twenty years.
If patents lasted as long as copyright, technological progress would come to a standstill.
Like technology, art is built on what has come before it.I believe that people could fully share all knowledge with each other and that there would still be a market for using that knowledge as a service or to produce a good.
I think we should still cite the original creators of the knowledge, but that it should be free to all.The purpose of patents and copyrights is to encourage the creation of new works.
I'm not likely to spend billions researching a new drug if anybody can sell that drug without royalties; I'd go broke in no time, as I'd have no way to recoup the cost of the research.
There's a lot wrong with current patent law, but the need for it exists.
The same with copyright law.
IMO copyrights should last no longer than patents, and noncommercial use should be legal.We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.You can't copyright knowledge, only its expression.
If you take a copyright work and put that knowledge down in your own words, you will hold copyright to the new expression of that knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31036022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31067040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31043712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31036158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31040276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31037536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31038114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31044214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31038884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31038278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1340258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31037250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1340258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31033964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31038278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035496
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31036158
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31044214
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31038884
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31038114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034596
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31036022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1340258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31040276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1340258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1340258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31043712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31034700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31037536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31037250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31035488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1340258.31067040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
