<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_28_192246</id>
	<title>BBC Activates DRM For Its iPlayer Content</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269805620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>oik writes <i>"The BBC has quietly added DRM to its iPlayer content. This breaks support for things like the <a href="http://code.google.com/p/xbmc-iplayerv2/">XBMC plugin</a> as well as other non-approved third-party players. The get-iplayer download page has a good <a href="http://linuxcentre.net/get\_iplayer-dropped-in-response-to-bbcs-lack-of-support-for-open-source">summary of what happened</a>, including links to The Reg articles and the BBC's response to users' complaints."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>oik writes " The BBC has quietly added DRM to its iPlayer content .
This breaks support for things like the XBMC plugin as well as other non-approved third-party players .
The get-iplayer download page has a good summary of what happened , including links to The Reg articles and the BBC 's response to users ' complaints .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oik writes "The BBC has quietly added DRM to its iPlayer content.
This breaks support for things like the XBMC plugin as well as other non-approved third-party players.
The get-iplayer download page has a good summary of what happened, including links to The Reg articles and the BBC's response to users' complaints.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650372</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>Turzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1269771300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If people can receive BBC signals via their aerials they are likely residing in the UK, and thus, more than likely pay a TV license.<br> <br>The BBC has been under pressure recently to reduce its costs, I suspect subsiding non-UK free-loaders is something they are trying to eliminate. I wouldn't be surprised if they added a paid subscription to iPlayer for non-UK residents in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people can receive BBC signals via their aerials they are likely residing in the UK , and thus , more than likely pay a TV license .
The BBC has been under pressure recently to reduce its costs , I suspect subsiding non-UK free-loaders is something they are trying to eliminate .
I would n't be surprised if they added a paid subscription to iPlayer for non-UK residents in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people can receive BBC signals via their aerials they are likely residing in the UK, and thus, more than likely pay a TV license.
The BBC has been under pressure recently to reduce its costs, I suspect subsiding non-UK free-loaders is something they are trying to eliminate.
I wouldn't be surprised if they added a paid subscription to iPlayer for non-UK residents in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649774</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1269809880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A stupid decision given the BBC broadcast DRM free mpeg2 over the airwaves. A &pound;30 USB TV card will let you record broadcast quality TV, so why do they feel that lower quality net streaming is a risk?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A stupid decision given the BBC broadcast DRM free mpeg2 over the airwaves .
A   30 USB TV card will let you record broadcast quality TV , so why do they feel that lower quality net streaming is a risk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A stupid decision given the BBC broadcast DRM free mpeg2 over the airwaves.
A £30 USB TV card will let you record broadcast quality TV, so why do they feel that lower quality net streaming is a risk?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649788</id>
	<title>I like BBC content.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269766800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thankfully, there's always bittorrent.</p><p>I am not a English resident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully , there 's always bittorrent.I am not a English resident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully, there's always bittorrent.I am not a English resident.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31657388</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269878460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is legitimate justification, there isn't any piratical reason for doing so.</p><p>I understand t's about the TV licence. I wouldn't mind watching shows on Hulu and include a commercial. Put the money made from the commercial into the 'TV license' bucket to offset future increases to the tv license. This way people viewing it from other countries will actually be adding to the TV license.</p><p>Yes, I know Hulu isn't available in all countries; however they could do this with other services as well, or from the BBC directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is legitimate justification , there is n't any piratical reason for doing so.I understand t 's about the TV licence .
I would n't mind watching shows on Hulu and include a commercial .
Put the money made from the commercial into the 'TV license ' bucket to offset future increases to the tv license .
This way people viewing it from other countries will actually be adding to the TV license.Yes , I know Hulu is n't available in all countries ; however they could do this with other services as well , or from the BBC directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is legitimate justification, there isn't any piratical reason for doing so.I understand t's about the TV licence.
I wouldn't mind watching shows on Hulu and include a commercial.
Put the money made from the commercial into the 'TV license' bucket to offset future increases to the tv license.
This way people viewing it from other countries will actually be adding to the TV license.Yes, I know Hulu isn't available in all countries; however they could do this with other services as well, or from the BBC directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650174</id>
	<title>Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1269770100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BBC owns the rights to many programs that they then sell to other markets.</p><p>For example the currently very popular "Life" series is a BBC program but the Discovery channel has bought rebroadcast rights.</p><p>If you can stream the iPlayer in the US because a player includes no DRM then the Discovery channel can sue the BBC for breaching their exclusive distribution rights.</p><p>This is true of all of their programs.  It's the BBC's responsibility to extract as much profit as possible from foreign markets.  It's part of how they fund their operations beyond local taxes.  So while they may have originally had the rights to the programs they relinquish limited distribution rights to others around the world.  The BBC World Service for instance is another example of this.   Radio stations around the world license BBC World Service for broadcast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC owns the rights to many programs that they then sell to other markets.For example the currently very popular " Life " series is a BBC program but the Discovery channel has bought rebroadcast rights.If you can stream the iPlayer in the US because a player includes no DRM then the Discovery channel can sue the BBC for breaching their exclusive distribution rights.This is true of all of their programs .
It 's the BBC 's responsibility to extract as much profit as possible from foreign markets .
It 's part of how they fund their operations beyond local taxes .
So while they may have originally had the rights to the programs they relinquish limited distribution rights to others around the world .
The BBC World Service for instance is another example of this .
Radio stations around the world license BBC World Service for broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC owns the rights to many programs that they then sell to other markets.For example the currently very popular "Life" series is a BBC program but the Discovery channel has bought rebroadcast rights.If you can stream the iPlayer in the US because a player includes no DRM then the Discovery channel can sue the BBC for breaching their exclusive distribution rights.This is true of all of their programs.
It's the BBC's responsibility to extract as much profit as possible from foreign markets.
It's part of how they fund their operations beyond local taxes.
So while they may have originally had the rights to the programs they relinquish limited distribution rights to others around the world.
The BBC World Service for instance is another example of this.
Radio stations around the world license BBC World Service for broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31652396</id>
	<title>They said that about music</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269787800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM music will never go away!
</p><p>Can you even <i>buy</i> DRM'd music any more?  Other than for the Zune of course.  Let's not consider the trivial fringe markets.  I understood it was pretty much MP3 or better everywhere now.  Am I mistaken?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM music will never go away !
Can you even buy DRM 'd music any more ?
Other than for the Zune of course .
Let 's not consider the trivial fringe markets .
I understood it was pretty much MP3 or better everywhere now .
Am I mistaken ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM music will never go away!
Can you even buy DRM'd music any more?
Other than for the Zune of course.
Let's not consider the trivial fringe markets.
I understood it was pretty much MP3 or better everywhere now.
Am I mistaken?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744</id>
	<title>Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1269809700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then dropped their service.  Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only hope to stop DRM. Act today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then dropped their service .
Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only hope to stop DRM .
Act today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then dropped their service.
Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only hope to stop DRM.
Act today!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650026</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1269768720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a tax supported public service (which, of course, only makes their DRM even more despicable). You can only opt out by not watching any TV channels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a tax supported public service ( which , of course , only makes their DRM even more despicable ) .
You can only opt out by not watching any TV channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a tax supported public service (which, of course, only makes their DRM even more despicable).
You can only opt out by not watching any TV channels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649870</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269767400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because it's British Broadcast Corporation and is, you know, paid for by British citizens that don't particularly want to pay for the internet to leach off of them? Kind of hard over air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because it 's British Broadcast Corporation and is , you know , paid for by British citizens that do n't particularly want to pay for the internet to leach off of them ?
Kind of hard over air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because it's British Broadcast Corporation and is, you know, paid for by British citizens that don't particularly want to pay for the internet to leach off of them?
Kind of hard over air.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650394</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269771480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I haven't had a TV for a while, but I kept paying the license fee because I thought the online news was valuable</p><p>Well that was silly. The license fee is only if you watch broadcast TV. It doesn't cover online streams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I have n't had a TV for a while , but I kept paying the license fee because I thought the online news was valuableWell that was silly .
The license fee is only if you watch broadcast TV .
It does n't cover online streams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I haven't had a TV for a while, but I kept paying the license fee because I thought the online news was valuableWell that was silly.
The license fee is only if you watch broadcast TV.
It doesn't cover online streams.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654218</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>nosferatu1001</author>
	<datestamp>1269894720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incorrect - the communications act 2000 extended it to include ANY live broadcast, whether you recieve it over the air or over the net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorrect - the communications act 2000 extended it to include ANY live broadcast , whether you recieve it over the air or over the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorrect - the communications act 2000 extended it to include ANY live broadcast, whether you recieve it over the air or over the net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696</id>
	<title>Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269809340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM is bad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM is bad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM is bad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31655370</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>TiggsPanther</author>
	<datestamp>1269867720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, you're dead right. One of the DRM advocates on the BBC Blogs comment thread comes over very much as being afraid that caving to the "FOSS preachers" will result in the withdrawal of content from the content providers.</p><p>Or, to put it another way, is willing to put up with a reduction in freedom as long as all his (her?) favourite programs are available for viewing.<br>
And then in the same paragraph, will accuse FOSS advocates of being "selfish".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , you 're dead right .
One of the DRM advocates on the BBC Blogs comment thread comes over very much as being afraid that caving to the " FOSS preachers " will result in the withdrawal of content from the content providers.Or , to put it another way , is willing to put up with a reduction in freedom as long as all his ( her ?
) favourite programs are available for viewing .
And then in the same paragraph , will accuse FOSS advocates of being " selfish " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, you're dead right.
One of the DRM advocates on the BBC Blogs comment thread comes over very much as being afraid that caving to the "FOSS preachers" will result in the withdrawal of content from the content providers.Or, to put it another way, is willing to put up with a reduction in freedom as long as all his (her?
) favourite programs are available for viewing.
And then in the same paragraph, will accuse FOSS advocates of being "selfish".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31655156</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1269864840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If something on the scale of iTunes (or hell, even a third of the size of iTunes) collapsed and created a huge DRM clusterfuck, that would probably be the turning point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If something on the scale of iTunes ( or hell , even a third of the size of iTunes ) collapsed and created a huge DRM clusterfuck , that would probably be the turning point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If something on the scale of iTunes (or hell, even a third of the size of iTunes) collapsed and created a huge DRM clusterfuck, that would probably be the turning point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650654</id>
	<title>Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1269773220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Also, bear in mind that when the BBC says "Rights holders require us to implement DRM" that the BBC potentially is being obfuscatory, because the rights holders it's talking about may in<br>&gt; fact be companies the BBC owns in part or in full. I.e. the BBC might be trying to hide "We want DRM". E.g. see this post from Anthony Rose giving BBC Worldwide as the prime example of the<br>&gt; DRM-requiring rights holders.</p><p>They're 'trying to hide' nothing. Whether or not the BBC owns them, they're different companies.  BBC Worldwide is not the BBC, and is allowed to make a profit.  They're going to be less interested in licensing and distributing BBC shows around the world if the BBC is streaming high quality shows for free around the world - it makes no point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Also , bear in mind that when the BBC says " Rights holders require us to implement DRM " that the BBC potentially is being obfuscatory , because the rights holders it 's talking about may in &gt; fact be companies the BBC owns in part or in full .
I.e. the BBC might be trying to hide " We want DRM " .
E.g. see this post from Anthony Rose giving BBC Worldwide as the prime example of the &gt; DRM-requiring rights holders.They 're 'trying to hide ' nothing .
Whether or not the BBC owns them , they 're different companies .
BBC Worldwide is not the BBC , and is allowed to make a profit .
They 're going to be less interested in licensing and distributing BBC shows around the world if the BBC is streaming high quality shows for free around the world - it makes no point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Also, bear in mind that when the BBC says "Rights holders require us to implement DRM" that the BBC potentially is being obfuscatory, because the rights holders it's talking about may in&gt; fact be companies the BBC owns in part or in full.
I.e. the BBC might be trying to hide "We want DRM".
E.g. see this post from Anthony Rose giving BBC Worldwide as the prime example of the&gt; DRM-requiring rights holders.They're 'trying to hide' nothing.
Whether or not the BBC owns them, they're different companies.
BBC Worldwide is not the BBC, and is allowed to make a profit.
They're going to be less interested in licensing and distributing BBC shows around the world if the BBC is streaming high quality shows for free around the world - it makes no point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31663674</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269864240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The BBC only has distribution rights within the UK.  They have sold those rights to a 3rd party in the US.</p></div><p>Why?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC only has distribution rights within the UK .
They have sold those rights to a 3rd party in the US.Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC only has distribution rights within the UK.
They have sold those rights to a 3rd party in the US.Why?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654982</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>ndixon</author>
	<datestamp>1269862860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should have taken better care of our tea...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should have taken better care of our tea.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should have taken better care of our tea...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31655132</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1269864540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect the BBC could have made a lot of money with decent contracts here that reduced the initial take and allowed the BBC to sell access rights on a per show basis to ex-UK viewers.</p><p>Probably the BBC toffs still made a lot of money so don't suppose they'll care. Their actions make things look more and more like a scam all the time to me - not sure of the details but it seems the BBC commission shows from their or their friends production companies, they don't appear to employ the show makers but employ the companies (why?). Even very long running shows are bought from outside. I was surprised to find, Top Gear  or Gardeners Question Time (radio show) to be bought in, that can't be economical for the British public surely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect the BBC could have made a lot of money with decent contracts here that reduced the initial take and allowed the BBC to sell access rights on a per show basis to ex-UK viewers.Probably the BBC toffs still made a lot of money so do n't suppose they 'll care .
Their actions make things look more and more like a scam all the time to me - not sure of the details but it seems the BBC commission shows from their or their friends production companies , they do n't appear to employ the show makers but employ the companies ( why ? ) .
Even very long running shows are bought from outside .
I was surprised to find , Top Gear or Gardeners Question Time ( radio show ) to be bought in , that ca n't be economical for the British public surely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect the BBC could have made a lot of money with decent contracts here that reduced the initial take and allowed the BBC to sell access rights on a per show basis to ex-UK viewers.Probably the BBC toffs still made a lot of money so don't suppose they'll care.
Their actions make things look more and more like a scam all the time to me - not sure of the details but it seems the BBC commission shows from their or their friends production companies, they don't appear to employ the show makers but employ the companies (why?).
Even very long running shows are bought from outside.
I was surprised to find, Top Gear  or Gardeners Question Time (radio show) to be bought in, that can't be economical for the British public surely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651026</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269775440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>iPlayer has been broken since day one, as far as I'm concerned. "You're in America, and we refuse to play anything for you, you colonial barbarian. All content on this site is reserved for refined, sophisticated subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen, properly located within Her Majesty's Realm."</i></p><p>It's a good thing the American TV sites don't do exactly the same to other countries that has ferriners in 'em, or I'd have to call you dimwitted, as well as a colonial barbarian.</p><p>On the plus side, we get a balanced report on world events, not a CIA/Hollywood "all the news that's fit to distort" synopsis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iPlayer has been broken since day one , as far as I 'm concerned .
" You 're in America , and we refuse to play anything for you , you colonial barbarian .
All content on this site is reserved for refined , sophisticated subjects of Her Majesty , the Queen , properly located within Her Majesty 's Realm .
" It 's a good thing the American TV sites do n't do exactly the same to other countries that has ferriners in 'em , or I 'd have to call you dimwitted , as well as a colonial barbarian.On the plus side , we get a balanced report on world events , not a CIA/Hollywood " all the news that 's fit to distort " synopsis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iPlayer has been broken since day one, as far as I'm concerned.
"You're in America, and we refuse to play anything for you, you colonial barbarian.
All content on this site is reserved for refined, sophisticated subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen, properly located within Her Majesty's Realm.
"It's a good thing the American TV sites don't do exactly the same to other countries that has ferriners in 'em, or I'd have to call you dimwitted, as well as a colonial barbarian.On the plus side, we get a balanced report on world events, not a CIA/Hollywood "all the news that's fit to distort" synopsis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654904</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>salmacis2</author>
	<datestamp>1269861780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>iPlayer is for catching up on the last 7 days. I'm not a gambler, but I'd put decent money on the BBC's servers still being up in a weeks time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>iPlayer is for catching up on the last 7 days .
I 'm not a gambler , but I 'd put decent money on the BBC 's servers still being up in a weeks time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iPlayer is for catching up on the last 7 days.
I'm not a gambler, but I'd put decent money on the BBC's servers still being up in a weeks time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651974</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269783720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've never made the TV content available to  "non-UK free-loaders" via iPlayer, it's geolocked, users outside the UK have to rely on satellite dishes to pick up freesat broadcasts or torrent sites, the only people hurt by further attempts to break the likes of get\_iplayer are uk residents who happen to enjoy the flexibility of downloading content they've paid for and watching it when they wish, rather than being forced to watch it streamed with a poorly performing flash plugin within 7 days of broadcast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've never made the TV content available to " non-UK free-loaders " via iPlayer , it 's geolocked , users outside the UK have to rely on satellite dishes to pick up freesat broadcasts or torrent sites , the only people hurt by further attempts to break the likes of get \ _iplayer are uk residents who happen to enjoy the flexibility of downloading content they 've paid for and watching it when they wish , rather than being forced to watch it streamed with a poorly performing flash plugin within 7 days of broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've never made the TV content available to  "non-UK free-loaders" via iPlayer, it's geolocked, users outside the UK have to rely on satellite dishes to pick up freesat broadcasts or torrent sites, the only people hurt by further attempts to break the likes of get\_iplayer are uk residents who happen to enjoy the flexibility of downloading content they've paid for and watching it when they wish, rather than being forced to watch it streamed with a poorly performing flash plugin within 7 days of broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651480</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1269778980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hula etc don't work for my country...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hula etc do n't work for my country.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hula etc don't work for my country...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31652458</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269788520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea- you are right. I put up with with with crappy service from illegal sources because they won't fucking deliver the god damm content in a format I can actually get. When they stream it over hulu.com in non-DRM format with advertisements I end up paying for it. When they lock it up in some non-free format that requires some proprietary plug-in only available on MS Windows they loose out and I put up with illegal sources for the content which is no good for either party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea- you are right .
I put up with with with crappy service from illegal sources because they wo n't fucking deliver the god damm content in a format I can actually get .
When they stream it over hulu.com in non-DRM format with advertisements I end up paying for it .
When they lock it up in some non-free format that requires some proprietary plug-in only available on MS Windows they loose out and I put up with illegal sources for the content which is no good for either party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea- you are right.
I put up with with with crappy service from illegal sources because they won't fucking deliver the god damm content in a format I can actually get.
When they stream it over hulu.com in non-DRM format with advertisements I end up paying for it.
When they lock it up in some non-free format that requires some proprietary plug-in only available on MS Windows they loose out and I put up with illegal sources for the content which is no good for either party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650486</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1269772140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BBC only has distribution rights within the UK.  They have sold those rights to a 3rd party in the US.  They can't stream the content to you because they are legally not allowed to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC only has distribution rights within the UK .
They have sold those rights to a 3rd party in the US .
They ca n't stream the content to you because they are legally not allowed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC only has distribution rights within the UK.
They have sold those rights to a 3rd party in the US.
They can't stream the content to you because they are legally not allowed to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31652282</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269786780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously watch too much Saxon TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously watch too much Saxon TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously watch too much Saxon TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654888</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>salmacis2</author>
	<datestamp>1269861660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hulu has been broken from day one, as far as I'm concerned. "You're in the UK and we refuse to play anything for you, you dumb limey. All content on this site is reserved for kick-ass, true-bloodied Americans, hell yes, properly located in God's own country. USA! USA!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hulu has been broken from day one , as far as I 'm concerned .
" You 're in the UK and we refuse to play anything for you , you dumb limey .
All content on this site is reserved for kick-ass , true-bloodied Americans , hell yes , properly located in God 's own country .
USA ! USA !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hulu has been broken from day one, as far as I'm concerned.
"You're in the UK and we refuse to play anything for you, you dumb limey.
All content on this site is reserved for kick-ass, true-bloodied Americans, hell yes, properly located in God's own country.
USA! USA!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649934</id>
	<title>Whoosh</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1269767820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And then dropped their service. Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only</p> </div><p>I agree fully. But then, the government unfortunately doesn't, and they have guns.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then dropped their service .
Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only I agree fully .
But then , the government unfortunately does n't , and they have guns .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then dropped their service.
Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only I agree fully.
But then, the government unfortunately doesn't, and they have guns.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654954</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269862500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; And then dropped their service. Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only hope to stop DRM. Act today!</p><p>Never happen.  The entire world is full of sheep (mostly wethers <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wether" title="thefreedictionary.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wether</a> [thefreedictionary.com]) who do as they're told by their governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And then dropped their service .
Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only hope to stop DRM .
Act today ! Never happen .
The entire world is full of sheep ( mostly wethers http : //www.thefreedictionary.com/wether [ thefreedictionary.com ] ) who do as they 're told by their governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; And then dropped their service.
Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only hope to stop DRM.
Act today!Never happen.
The entire world is full of sheep (mostly wethers http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wether [thefreedictionary.com]) who do as they're told by their governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651356</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1269778200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can have iPlayer when The Daily Show and Colbert Report webfeeds are available again in the UK. The geo-locking of web streams is very annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can have iPlayer when The Daily Show and Colbert Report webfeeds are available again in the UK .
The geo-locking of web streams is very annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can have iPlayer when The Daily Show and Colbert Report webfeeds are available again in the UK.
The geo-locking of web streams is very annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650950</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>atmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1269774960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't tell me you're having second thoughts on that old tea party of yours are you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't tell me you 're having second thoughts on that old tea party of yours are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't tell me you're having second thoughts on that old tea party of yours are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649900</id>
	<title>Gah.</title>
	<author>Finallyjoined!!!</author>
	<datestamp>1269767580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's nothing to do with any of all that old bollocks, I do wish people would read the FUCKING article, or maybe sod off &amp; just read bog-roll packets. Yeah, that'll do it. Bollocks I'm off down the pub. <b>Tosser.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nothing to do with any of all that old bollocks , I do wish people would read the FUCKING article , or maybe sod off &amp; just read bog-roll packets .
Yeah , that 'll do it .
Bollocks I 'm off down the pub .
Tosser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nothing to do with any of all that old bollocks, I do wish people would read the FUCKING article, or maybe sod off &amp; just read bog-roll packets.
Yeah, that'll do it.
Bollocks I'm off down the pub.
Tosser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649886</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Paul Jakma</author>
	<datestamp>1269767460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe, in addition to the usual blind-spot media execs seem to have about DRM, that there's an element of getting control over the client viewing platform. E.g. the BBC are developing a set-top-box for internet TV (Project Canvas).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe , in addition to the usual blind-spot media execs seem to have about DRM , that there 's an element of getting control over the client viewing platform .
E.g. the BBC are developing a set-top-box for internet TV ( Project Canvas ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe, in addition to the usual blind-spot media execs seem to have about DRM, that there's an element of getting control over the client viewing platform.
E.g. the BBC are developing a set-top-box for internet TV (Project Canvas).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269771060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iPlayer has been broken since day one, as far as I'm concerned.  "You're in America, and we refuse to play anything for you, you colonial barbarian.  All content on this site is reserved for refined, sophisticated subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen, properly located within Her Majesty's Realm."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iPlayer has been broken since day one , as far as I 'm concerned .
" You 're in America , and we refuse to play anything for you , you colonial barbarian .
All content on this site is reserved for refined , sophisticated subjects of Her Majesty , the Queen , properly located within Her Majesty 's Realm .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iPlayer has been broken since day one, as far as I'm concerned.
"You're in America, and we refuse to play anything for you, you colonial barbarian.
All content on this site is reserved for refined, sophisticated subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen, properly located within Her Majesty's Realm.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650904</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen you barbarian cunt, you haven't payed a metric shedload of cash to the BBC for your licence to view like us back here in Blighty. So please shut the fuck up or poney up some cash to pay for what you're watching.</p><p>Thank you,<br>The BBC licence fee paying public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen you barbarian cunt , you have n't payed a metric shedload of cash to the BBC for your licence to view like us back here in Blighty .
So please shut the fuck up or poney up some cash to pay for what you 're watching.Thank you,The BBC licence fee paying public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen you barbarian cunt, you haven't payed a metric shedload of cash to the BBC for your licence to view like us back here in Blighty.
So please shut the fuck up or poney up some cash to pay for what you're watching.Thank you,The BBC licence fee paying public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1269766860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only the people who read this website actually care. DRM will never die because users are used to putting up with inconvenience and absurd costs for their media. Customers just accept anything, be it overpriced cable TV service(you pay a monthly fee, then you also have to pay per view), or an extremely disruptive level of advertising in programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only the people who read this website actually care .
DRM will never die because users are used to putting up with inconvenience and absurd costs for their media .
Customers just accept anything , be it overpriced cable TV service ( you pay a monthly fee , then you also have to pay per view ) , or an extremely disruptive level of advertising in programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only the people who read this website actually care.
DRM will never die because users are used to putting up with inconvenience and absurd costs for their media.
Customers just accept anything, be it overpriced cable TV service(you pay a monthly fee, then you also have to pay per view), or an extremely disruptive level of advertising in programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649932</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269767820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stopped paying the TV license when they introduced MS DRM on iPlayer originally (I haven't had a TV for a while, but I kept paying the license fee because I thought the online news was valuable).  I'm absolutely disgusted by this.  The BBC streams HD H.264 unencrypted over the air.  It's absolutely ludicrous that they should DRM the online streams.  If you want to pirate their content, just stick a DVB-T card in your computer, grab the streams, and upload them (optionally after transcoding).  This is exactly what happens - you can get anything on iPlayer from various torrent sites at a higher quality from the OTA broadcast.  So why are they adding DRM?  There is absolutely no legitimate justification for it.  </p><p>
The BBC is a large organisation.  They should not bow to pressure on this issue - if content is not available DRM free then they should refuse to license it at all, even for terrestrial broadcast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped paying the TV license when they introduced MS DRM on iPlayer originally ( I have n't had a TV for a while , but I kept paying the license fee because I thought the online news was valuable ) .
I 'm absolutely disgusted by this .
The BBC streams HD H.264 unencrypted over the air .
It 's absolutely ludicrous that they should DRM the online streams .
If you want to pirate their content , just stick a DVB-T card in your computer , grab the streams , and upload them ( optionally after transcoding ) .
This is exactly what happens - you can get anything on iPlayer from various torrent sites at a higher quality from the OTA broadcast .
So why are they adding DRM ?
There is absolutely no legitimate justification for it .
The BBC is a large organisation .
They should not bow to pressure on this issue - if content is not available DRM free then they should refuse to license it at all , even for terrestrial broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped paying the TV license when they introduced MS DRM on iPlayer originally (I haven't had a TV for a while, but I kept paying the license fee because I thought the online news was valuable).
I'm absolutely disgusted by this.
The BBC streams HD H.264 unencrypted over the air.
It's absolutely ludicrous that they should DRM the online streams.
If you want to pirate their content, just stick a DVB-T card in your computer, grab the streams, and upload them (optionally after transcoding).
This is exactly what happens - you can get anything on iPlayer from various torrent sites at a higher quality from the OTA broadcast.
So why are they adding DRM?
There is absolutely no legitimate justification for it.
The BBC is a large organisation.
They should not bow to pressure on this issue - if content is not available DRM free then they should refuse to license it at all, even for terrestrial broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654258</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>henrik.falk</author>
	<datestamp>1269895380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's for U.K. TV license payers, you know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's for U.K. TV license payers , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's for U.K. TV license payers, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649858</id>
	<title>Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269767340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/03/bbc\_iplayer\_content\_protection.html" title="bbc.co.uk">long discussion on this on a BBC blog</a> [bbc.co.uk].</p><p>Also, bear in mind that when the BBC says "Rights holders require us to implement DRM" that the BBC potentially is being obfuscatory, because the rights holders it's talking about may in fact be companies the BBC owns in part or in full. I.e. the BBC might be trying to hide "We want DRM". E.g. see <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/12/introducing\_iplayer\_deskto.html" title="bbc.co.uk">this post from Anthony Rose</a> [bbc.co.uk] giving BBC Worldwide as the prime example of the DRM-requiring rights holders.</p><p>Finally, this is from a comment I left on the linuxcentre blog:</p><p>BBC Trust is running a <a href="https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/departments/bbc/bbc-strategy-review/consultation/consult\_view" title="bbc.co.uk">consultation</a> [bbc.co.uk] on the BBC strategic review. One of the key questions is regarding platform neutrality. It is very important that people fill in that survey and let the Trust know how important open ly specified access is. In particular the following is important for platform neutrality:</p><p>* BBC Ondemand should *not* be built on proprietary, single-vendor technologies, such as Adobe Flash.<br>* BBC Ondemand should be built on multi-vendor, open, non-discriminatory standards, such as HTML5 video.<br>* The BBC should *not* be in the business of dictating which ondemand client implementations may access iPlayer and which may not.</p><p>These things are important both for free software, but also more generally for a healthy market. It is not in the public interest for the BBC to become the king-maker of client device implementations. Please take the time to let the Trust know your views on platform neutrality and how the current situation is bad for the greater public interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a long discussion on this on a BBC blog [ bbc.co.uk ] .Also , bear in mind that when the BBC says " Rights holders require us to implement DRM " that the BBC potentially is being obfuscatory , because the rights holders it 's talking about may in fact be companies the BBC owns in part or in full .
I.e. the BBC might be trying to hide " We want DRM " .
E.g. see this post from Anthony Rose [ bbc.co.uk ] giving BBC Worldwide as the prime example of the DRM-requiring rights holders.Finally , this is from a comment I left on the linuxcentre blog : BBC Trust is running a consultation [ bbc.co.uk ] on the BBC strategic review .
One of the key questions is regarding platform neutrality .
It is very important that people fill in that survey and let the Trust know how important open ly specified access is .
In particular the following is important for platform neutrality : * BBC Ondemand should * not * be built on proprietary , single-vendor technologies , such as Adobe Flash .
* BBC Ondemand should be built on multi-vendor , open , non-discriminatory standards , such as HTML5 video .
* The BBC should * not * be in the business of dictating which ondemand client implementations may access iPlayer and which may not.These things are important both for free software , but also more generally for a healthy market .
It is not in the public interest for the BBC to become the king-maker of client device implementations .
Please take the time to let the Trust know your views on platform neutrality and how the current situation is bad for the greater public interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a long discussion on this on a BBC blog [bbc.co.uk].Also, bear in mind that when the BBC says "Rights holders require us to implement DRM" that the BBC potentially is being obfuscatory, because the rights holders it's talking about may in fact be companies the BBC owns in part or in full.
I.e. the BBC might be trying to hide "We want DRM".
E.g. see this post from Anthony Rose [bbc.co.uk] giving BBC Worldwide as the prime example of the DRM-requiring rights holders.Finally, this is from a comment I left on the linuxcentre blog:BBC Trust is running a consultation [bbc.co.uk] on the BBC strategic review.
One of the key questions is regarding platform neutrality.
It is very important that people fill in that survey and let the Trust know how important open ly specified access is.
In particular the following is important for platform neutrality:* BBC Ondemand should *not* be built on proprietary, single-vendor technologies, such as Adobe Flash.
* BBC Ondemand should be built on multi-vendor, open, non-discriminatory standards, such as HTML5 video.
* The BBC should *not* be in the business of dictating which ondemand client implementations may access iPlayer and which may not.These things are important both for free software, but also more generally for a healthy market.
It is not in the public interest for the BBC to become the king-maker of client device implementations.
Please take the time to let the Trust know your views on platform neutrality and how the current situation is bad for the greater public interest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651166</id>
	<title>Re:Its like 1000's of customers cried out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269776520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit. They will care, as soon as someone switches the DRM server off. Which already happened more than once, and created massive anger, especially among Joe Sixpack types, who sued. As soon as (tabloid) newspapers notice these events, they will warn about the DRM fraud schemes. Which the Joes will read. Resulting in mass-avoidance.</p><p>The normal guy on the street luckily still thinks that he owns what he buys. Even if it&rsquo;s information (e.g. movies). So if that what he thinks he owns, goes away in any way, he will sue for fraud/theft/etc, avoid them, and tell his friends to avoid them. Simple as that.</p><p>It&rsquo;s the natural rule of maximum efficiency. As soon as buying DRMed stuff becomes negative compared to the other choices, it dies. Period. (The trick is to offer better choices. But that&rsquo;s already in the works, as artists leave their publishers droves, as soon as they can get out. To then do their own thing, and get a multiple of the money they got before.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
They will care , as soon as someone switches the DRM server off .
Which already happened more than once , and created massive anger , especially among Joe Sixpack types , who sued .
As soon as ( tabloid ) newspapers notice these events , they will warn about the DRM fraud schemes .
Which the Joes will read .
Resulting in mass-avoidance.The normal guy on the street luckily still thinks that he owns what he buys .
Even if it    s information ( e.g .
movies ) . So if that what he thinks he owns , goes away in any way , he will sue for fraud/theft/etc , avoid them , and tell his friends to avoid them .
Simple as that.It    s the natural rule of maximum efficiency .
As soon as buying DRMed stuff becomes negative compared to the other choices , it dies .
Period. ( The trick is to offer better choices .
But that    s already in the works , as artists leave their publishers droves , as soon as they can get out .
To then do their own thing , and get a multiple of the money they got before .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
They will care, as soon as someone switches the DRM server off.
Which already happened more than once, and created massive anger, especially among Joe Sixpack types, who sued.
As soon as (tabloid) newspapers notice these events, they will warn about the DRM fraud schemes.
Which the Joes will read.
Resulting in mass-avoidance.The normal guy on the street luckily still thinks that he owns what he buys.
Even if it’s information (e.g.
movies). So if that what he thinks he owns, goes away in any way, he will sue for fraud/theft/etc, avoid them, and tell his friends to avoid them.
Simple as that.It’s the natural rule of maximum efficiency.
As soon as buying DRMed stuff becomes negative compared to the other choices, it dies.
Period. (The trick is to offer better choices.
But that’s already in the works, as artists leave their publishers droves, as soon as they can get out.
To then do their own thing, and get a multiple of the money they got before.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649814</id>
	<title>The TV market is broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the broadcast rights contracts are based on market exclusivity.  The Beeb is obligated to make an effort not to step on the toes of broadcasters in other markets.</p><p>Still, disappointing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the broadcast rights contracts are based on market exclusivity .
The Beeb is obligated to make an effort not to step on the toes of broadcasters in other markets.Still , disappointing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the broadcast rights contracts are based on market exclusivity.
The Beeb is obligated to make an effort not to step on the toes of broadcasters in other markets.Still, disappointing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31656382</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Kleiba</author>
	<datestamp>1269874260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, that's just for Americans to get a feel for what it is like to live in the Old Europe, trying to access hulu.com, pandora.com, great deals of youtube.com, heck even goodies like dexter's lab episodes on cartoonnetwork.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , that 's just for Americans to get a feel for what it is like to live in the Old Europe , trying to access hulu.com , pandora.com , great deals of youtube.com , heck even goodies like dexter 's lab episodes on cartoonnetwork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, that's just for Americans to get a feel for what it is like to live in the Old Europe, trying to access hulu.com, pandora.com, great deals of youtube.com, heck even goodies like dexter's lab episodes on cartoonnetwork.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650760</id>
	<title>Re:Who wants DRM? Who wants platform neutrality?</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1269773940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh, put it in the contract. Don't sell \_exclusive\_ broadcasting rights of something you still broadcast yourself. Next intractable legal conundrum, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh , put it in the contract .
Do n't sell \ _exclusive \ _ broadcasting rights of something you still broadcast yourself .
Next intractable legal conundrum , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh, put it in the contract.
Don't sell \_exclusive\_ broadcasting rights of something you still broadcast yourself.
Next intractable legal conundrum, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650174</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31656382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31652396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31663674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31655156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31655370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31657388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31652282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31655132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31652458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_192246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_192246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651166
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31655156
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31652458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31652396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31655370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650394
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650372
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31657388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_192246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_192246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_192246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_192246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31649696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31656382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31652282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31651480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31654258
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31663674
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31655132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_192246.31650950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
