<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_1350215</id>
	<title>DRM Group Set To Phase Out "Analog Hole"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244816160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"In yet another bid to make your life a little more annoying, our DRM overlords at the AACS Licensing Authority have released <a href="http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/06/drm-licensing-group-presses-on-with-plan-to-plug-analog-hole.ars">a new AACS Adopter Agreement</a>. The riveting, <a href="http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS\_Adopter\_Agrmt\_090605.pdf">188-page PDF</a> will inform you that &mdash; in the name of Digital Rights Management &mdash; there will be new limitations set on devices that decrypt Blu-Ray discs. HDMI already has the awesome encryption of HDCP between the device and the display unit. But Blu-Ray still has the Achilles heel of analog players that allow someone to merely re-encode the analog signal back to an unencrypted digital format. So if you have an analog HDTV, hang on to those analog decoders and hope they never break; by 2013 you won't be able to buy a new one. Ars points out the inherent stupidity in this charade: 'Particularly puzzling is the fact that plugging the so-called "analog hole" won't stop direct digital ripping, enabled by software such as AnyDVD HD. And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole.' And so the cat and mouse game continues. On that subject, DVD Jon's legit company just brought out a <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/dvd-jon-attacks-apple/">billboard ad for his product doubleTwist next to Apple's San Fransisco store</a>. It reads, 'The Cure for iPhone Envy. Your iTunes library on any device. In seconds.' So while he's busy taunting Apple, I'm certain there are others who might have some free time to look at Blu-Ray and the <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/03/1434246&amp;tid=188">'uncrackable' AACS</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " In yet another bid to make your life a little more annoying , our DRM overlords at the AACS Licensing Authority have released a new AACS Adopter Agreement .
The riveting , 188-page PDF will inform you that    in the name of Digital Rights Management    there will be new limitations set on devices that decrypt Blu-Ray discs .
HDMI already has the awesome encryption of HDCP between the device and the display unit .
But Blu-Ray still has the Achilles heel of analog players that allow someone to merely re-encode the analog signal back to an unencrypted digital format .
So if you have an analog HDTV , hang on to those analog decoders and hope they never break ; by 2013 you wo n't be able to buy a new one .
Ars points out the inherent stupidity in this charade : 'Particularly puzzling is the fact that plugging the so-called " analog hole " wo n't stop direct digital ripping , enabled by software such as AnyDVD HD .
And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies , creating another analog hole .
' And so the cat and mouse game continues .
On that subject , DVD Jon 's legit company just brought out a billboard ad for his product doubleTwist next to Apple 's San Fransisco store .
It reads , 'The Cure for iPhone Envy .
Your iTunes library on any device .
In seconds .
' So while he 's busy taunting Apple , I 'm certain there are others who might have some free time to look at Blu-Ray and the 'uncrackable ' AACS .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "In yet another bid to make your life a little more annoying, our DRM overlords at the AACS Licensing Authority have released a new AACS Adopter Agreement.
The riveting, 188-page PDF will inform you that — in the name of Digital Rights Management — there will be new limitations set on devices that decrypt Blu-Ray discs.
HDMI already has the awesome encryption of HDCP between the device and the display unit.
But Blu-Ray still has the Achilles heel of analog players that allow someone to merely re-encode the analog signal back to an unencrypted digital format.
So if you have an analog HDTV, hang on to those analog decoders and hope they never break; by 2013 you won't be able to buy a new one.
Ars points out the inherent stupidity in this charade: 'Particularly puzzling is the fact that plugging the so-called "analog hole" won't stop direct digital ripping, enabled by software such as AnyDVD HD.
And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole.
' And so the cat and mouse game continues.
On that subject, DVD Jon's legit company just brought out a billboard ad for his product doubleTwist next to Apple's San Fransisco store.
It reads, 'The Cure for iPhone Envy.
Your iTunes library on any device.
In seconds.
' So while he's busy taunting Apple, I'm certain there are others who might have some free time to look at Blu-Ray and the 'uncrackable' AACS.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309235</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1244825940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is that still around? Everywhere I see that carries any BR disks, the inventory is next to nothing now.</p></div><p>Just goes to show. The places I get video from carry more and more BR stock every month since HD-DVD died.  BR in blockbuster is slowly taking over the DVD racks, encroaching from the outside in.  Netflix adds more to their BR selection ever month too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. This forced upgrade to a technology with a terrible, inherent flaw (tearing and lagging from any significant motion, even with the best, most current technology) is unacceptable</p></div><p>Did you last look 10 years ago? Seriously, I have a sub-$1000 46" store brand LCD, the picture is great.  I have never seen any tearing or other issues.  While I think spending thousands of dollars on one of these is ridiculous, denying that there could possibly be any merit because you just want people to get off your lawn is equally so.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology, I'll be on board but until then, to hell with this cheaply done forced upgrade crap to appease people who like shiny new things.</p></div><p>Yeah, dude, my last TV was a black and white. I totally know what you mean. Anything since black and white has been a waste of money, designed to appease peopelw ho like shiny new things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that still around ?
Everywhere I see that carries any BR disks , the inventory is next to nothing now.Just goes to show .
The places I get video from carry more and more BR stock every month since HD-DVD died .
BR in blockbuster is slowly taking over the DVD racks , encroaching from the outside in .
Netflix adds more to their BR selection ever month too.Also , they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold , dead hands .
This forced upgrade to a technology with a terrible , inherent flaw ( tearing and lagging from any significant motion , even with the best , most current technology ) is unacceptableDid you last look 10 years ago ?
Seriously , I have a sub- $ 1000 46 " store brand LCD , the picture is great .
I have never seen any tearing or other issues .
While I think spending thousands of dollars on one of these is ridiculous , denying that there could possibly be any merit because you just want people to get off your lawn is equally so.When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology , I 'll be on board but until then , to hell with this cheaply done forced upgrade crap to appease people who like shiny new things.Yeah , dude , my last TV was a black and white .
I totally know what you mean .
Anything since black and white has been a waste of money , designed to appease peopelw ho like shiny new things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that still around?
Everywhere I see that carries any BR disks, the inventory is next to nothing now.Just goes to show.
The places I get video from carry more and more BR stock every month since HD-DVD died.
BR in blockbuster is slowly taking over the DVD racks, encroaching from the outside in.
Netflix adds more to their BR selection ever month too.Also, they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
This forced upgrade to a technology with a terrible, inherent flaw (tearing and lagging from any significant motion, even with the best, most current technology) is unacceptableDid you last look 10 years ago?
Seriously, I have a sub-$1000 46" store brand LCD, the picture is great.
I have never seen any tearing or other issues.
While I think spending thousands of dollars on one of these is ridiculous, denying that there could possibly be any merit because you just want people to get off your lawn is equally so.When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology, I'll be on board but until then, to hell with this cheaply done forced upgrade crap to appease people who like shiny new things.Yeah, dude, my last TV was a black and white.
I totally know what you mean.
Anything since black and white has been a waste of money, designed to appease peopelw ho like shiny new things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309585</id>
	<title>HAHA</title>
	<author>Iceykitsune</author>
	<datestamp>1244827140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the content is to be viewed by human beings, there WILL be an analog hole!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the content is to be viewed by human beings , there WILL be an analog hole !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the content is to be viewed by human beings, there WILL be an analog hole!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28316075</id>
	<title>They're working on it</title>
	<author>Rob Simpson</author>
	<datestamp>1244813940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200103/df20010306.jpg" title="ibiblio.org">At last a digital licensing scheme the recording industry can live with</a> [ibiblio.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>At last a digital licensing scheme the recording industry can live with [ ibiblio.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At last a digital licensing scheme the recording industry can live with [ibiblio.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310297</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait... Still Waiting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there have been proposals and initiatives since DVD was first ripped to require camcorders to respond to the "consensus watermark" and cease recording. (un) fortunately, there never was a consensus about which watermark technology would be used. don't think the idea is either new or even dead. I was there</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there have been proposals and initiatives since DVD was first ripped to require camcorders to respond to the " consensus watermark " and cease recording .
( un ) fortunately , there never was a consensus about which watermark technology would be used .
do n't think the idea is either new or even dead .
I was there</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there have been proposals and initiatives since DVD was first ripped to require camcorders to respond to the "consensus watermark" and cease recording.
(un) fortunately, there never was a consensus about which watermark technology would be used.
don't think the idea is either new or even dead.
I was there</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308685</id>
	<title>This just in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"DRM group intends to require memory-wiping technology in Blu-ray players by 2020 to prevent copyright infringement by viewers who store illegal mental copies of films and talk about the film with their friends"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" DRM group intends to require memory-wiping technology in Blu-ray players by 2020 to prevent copyright infringement by viewers who store illegal mental copies of films and talk about the film with their friends "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"DRM group intends to require memory-wiping technology in Blu-ray players by 2020 to prevent copyright infringement by viewers who store illegal mental copies of films and talk about the film with their friends"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308835</id>
	<title>Re:Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244824080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you know how much data is on a Blu-Ray?  Do you know what compression does? (it's not lossless)  These so called 'HD' downloads do not compete with a Blu-Ray (maybe DVD).</p><p>There should be some sort of consumer protection to what can be called HD because I feel that a lot of these so called 'instant downloadable HD' are not HD quality.</p><p>I agree with the bandwidth improvement comment; but I unfortunately I feel we're still far away from that.  Blu-Ray can have it's time to shine but I think the regular Joe couldn't care a less for the quality difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know how much data is on a Blu-Ray ?
Do you know what compression does ?
( it 's not lossless ) These so called 'HD ' downloads do not compete with a Blu-Ray ( maybe DVD ) .There should be some sort of consumer protection to what can be called HD because I feel that a lot of these so called 'instant downloadable HD ' are not HD quality.I agree with the bandwidth improvement comment ; but I unfortunately I feel we 're still far away from that .
Blu-Ray can have it 's time to shine but I think the regular Joe could n't care a less for the quality difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know how much data is on a Blu-Ray?
Do you know what compression does?
(it's not lossless)  These so called 'HD' downloads do not compete with a Blu-Ray (maybe DVD).There should be some sort of consumer protection to what can be called HD because I feel that a lot of these so called 'instant downloadable HD' are not HD quality.I agree with the bandwidth improvement comment; but I unfortunately I feel we're still far away from that.
Blu-Ray can have it's time to shine but I think the regular Joe couldn't care a less for the quality difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28317723</id>
	<title>Re:If they do this, I will have no choice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pssshhhh, you're still ANALOG?</p><p>heh, noob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pssshhhh , you 're still ANALOG ? heh , noob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pssshhhh, you're still ANALOG?heh, noob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035</id>
	<title>Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The content industry has not made a compelling case for me to ditch my DVD collection.   My upscaling DVD player makes most of my DVDs look great on my HDTV.   Why should I subject myself to DRM and an incomplete spec by upgrading?</p><p>What's more, if Apple succeeds in making HD downloads seamless and reasonably fast with their new compression technologies (and/or internet bandwidth improves significantly in North America), then it's game over for Blu-Ray.   Why should I invest in Blu-Ray and bother driving to a brick-and-mortar store when I might not have to?</p><p>Apple left out Blu-Ray from Macs for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The content industry has not made a compelling case for me to ditch my DVD collection .
My upscaling DVD player makes most of my DVDs look great on my HDTV .
Why should I subject myself to DRM and an incomplete spec by upgrading ? What 's more , if Apple succeeds in making HD downloads seamless and reasonably fast with their new compression technologies ( and/or internet bandwidth improves significantly in North America ) , then it 's game over for Blu-Ray .
Why should I invest in Blu-Ray and bother driving to a brick-and-mortar store when I might not have to ? Apple left out Blu-Ray from Macs for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The content industry has not made a compelling case for me to ditch my DVD collection.
My upscaling DVD player makes most of my DVDs look great on my HDTV.
Why should I subject myself to DRM and an incomplete spec by upgrading?What's more, if Apple succeeds in making HD downloads seamless and reasonably fast with their new compression technologies (and/or internet bandwidth improves significantly in North America), then it's game over for Blu-Ray.
Why should I invest in Blu-Ray and bother driving to a brick-and-mortar store when I might not have to?Apple left out Blu-Ray from Macs for a reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309875</id>
	<title>Re:Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1244828160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you know how much data is on a Blu-Ray?</p></div><p>Significantly less space than my $50 portable hard drive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know how much data is on a Blu-Ray ? Significantly less space than my $ 50 portable hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know how much data is on a Blu-Ray?Significantly less space than my $50 portable hard drive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308699</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1244823420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When are these companies going to give up with BR?</p></div></blockquote><p>If I had to guess, I would say when it stops being profitable.</p><p>The time for BD to fail is ending. HDTV sets are becoming increasingly popular, and the price of both players and discs are dropping. Demand is only going to increase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are these companies going to give up with BR ? If I had to guess , I would say when it stops being profitable.The time for BD to fail is ending .
HDTV sets are becoming increasingly popular , and the price of both players and discs are dropping .
Demand is only going to increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When are these companies going to give up with BR?If I had to guess, I would say when it stops being profitable.The time for BD to fail is ending.
HDTV sets are becoming increasingly popular, and the price of both players and discs are dropping.
Demand is only going to increase.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259</id>
	<title>"Good enough"...to pirate.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But Blu-Ray still has the Achilles heel of analog players that allow someone to merely re-encode the analog signal back to an unencrypted digital format. "</p><p>OK so if analog is "good enough", then what's the point of having digital?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But Blu-Ray still has the Achilles heel of analog players that allow someone to merely re-encode the analog signal back to an unencrypted digital format .
" OK so if analog is " good enough " , then what 's the point of having digital ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But Blu-Ray still has the Achilles heel of analog players that allow someone to merely re-encode the analog signal back to an unencrypted digital format.
"OK so if analog is "good enough", then what's the point of having digital?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308371</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1244822160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>BluRay really does look better.  A lot better than a DVD.  However, most people aren't willing to pay extra to get that better experience.  Just like everybody could spend $3000 on a computer to play all their games at ultra high resolutions with really high framerates.  But they don't.  Because whatever quality they get is good enough, and the extra money doesn't justify the cost.  If they really wanted to make BluRay catch on, they would price the discs the same price as DVD.  A new movie isn't worth an extra $10 just because the resolution better. I'd rather buy 3 DVDs than 2 BluRays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BluRay really does look better .
A lot better than a DVD .
However , most people are n't willing to pay extra to get that better experience .
Just like everybody could spend $ 3000 on a computer to play all their games at ultra high resolutions with really high framerates .
But they do n't .
Because whatever quality they get is good enough , and the extra money does n't justify the cost .
If they really wanted to make BluRay catch on , they would price the discs the same price as DVD .
A new movie is n't worth an extra $ 10 just because the resolution better .
I 'd rather buy 3 DVDs than 2 BluRays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BluRay really does look better.
A lot better than a DVD.
However, most people aren't willing to pay extra to get that better experience.
Just like everybody could spend $3000 on a computer to play all their games at ultra high resolutions with really high framerates.
But they don't.
Because whatever quality they get is good enough, and the extra money doesn't justify the cost.
If they really wanted to make BluRay catch on, they would price the discs the same price as DVD.
A new movie isn't worth an extra $10 just because the resolution better.
I'd rather buy 3 DVDs than 2 BluRays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311161</id>
	<title>not too surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't really blame them for trying to cover their A-hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't really blame them for trying to cover their A-hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't really blame them for trying to cover their A-hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309579</id>
	<title>Re:Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1244827140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's more, if Apple succeeds in making HD downloads seamless and reasonably fast with their new compression technologies, then it's game over for Blu-Ray.</p></div><p>Apple doesn't have any 'new compression technologies', they just use standard H264.  Furthermore, they use CAVLC, which is about 30\% less efficient than the more commonly used CABAC.  At the moment, the best the iTunes store offers is relatively low bitrate 720p.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's more , if Apple succeeds in making HD downloads seamless and reasonably fast with their new compression technologies , then it 's game over for Blu-Ray.Apple does n't have any 'new compression technologies ' , they just use standard H264 .
Furthermore , they use CAVLC , which is about 30 \ % less efficient than the more commonly used CABAC .
At the moment , the best the iTunes store offers is relatively low bitrate 720p .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's more, if Apple succeeds in making HD downloads seamless and reasonably fast with their new compression technologies, then it's game over for Blu-Ray.Apple doesn't have any 'new compression technologies', they just use standard H264.
Furthermore, they use CAVLC, which is about 30\% less efficient than the more commonly used CABAC.
At the moment, the best the iTunes store offers is relatively low bitrate 720p.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309477</id>
	<title>Re:opting out</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1244826780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Don't like the terms they are giving you? OPT OUT!</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a very important point. Far too many people nowadays complain about some service or technology but hand over their money anyway. It reminds me of this idiot post I read recently where people were complaining about a game developer. This guy actually posts that he was going to buy this particular game anyway, but he was going to give them the finger on the way out the door.</p><p>Congratulations, what this guy has accomplished is the equivalent of being kicked in the nuts and giving the attacker a back rub in response.</p><p>The clearest message a consumer can make is to not buy products from companies they're not happy with. And this means not pirating as well, because by pirating you're merely saying that the demand exists and thus justifying the constant push for DRM. These companies are obviously convinced that some day they're going to develop totally effective DRM.</p><p>Don't like it? Don't buy it. Especially considering that none of this is really a necessity for living. There are other, potentially more fulfilling, ways to entertain yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't like the terms they are giving you ?
OPT OUT ! This is a very important point .
Far too many people nowadays complain about some service or technology but hand over their money anyway .
It reminds me of this idiot post I read recently where people were complaining about a game developer .
This guy actually posts that he was going to buy this particular game anyway , but he was going to give them the finger on the way out the door.Congratulations , what this guy has accomplished is the equivalent of being kicked in the nuts and giving the attacker a back rub in response.The clearest message a consumer can make is to not buy products from companies they 're not happy with .
And this means not pirating as well , because by pirating you 're merely saying that the demand exists and thus justifying the constant push for DRM .
These companies are obviously convinced that some day they 're going to develop totally effective DRM.Do n't like it ?
Do n't buy it .
Especially considering that none of this is really a necessity for living .
There are other , potentially more fulfilling , ways to entertain yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't like the terms they are giving you?
OPT OUT!This is a very important point.
Far too many people nowadays complain about some service or technology but hand over their money anyway.
It reminds me of this idiot post I read recently where people were complaining about a game developer.
This guy actually posts that he was going to buy this particular game anyway, but he was going to give them the finger on the way out the door.Congratulations, what this guy has accomplished is the equivalent of being kicked in the nuts and giving the attacker a back rub in response.The clearest message a consumer can make is to not buy products from companies they're not happy with.
And this means not pirating as well, because by pirating you're merely saying that the demand exists and thus justifying the constant push for DRM.
These companies are obviously convinced that some day they're going to develop totally effective DRM.Don't like it?
Don't buy it.
Especially considering that none of this is really a necessity for living.
There are other, potentially more fulfilling, ways to entertain yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309331</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1244826300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most of the movies in my collection were never filmed in high definition,</i></p><p>I bet they were.  if they came from FILM, they can be scanned into higher res.  film is inherently a very high res media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the movies in my collection were never filmed in high definition,I bet they were .
if they came from FILM , they can be scanned into higher res .
film is inherently a very high res media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the movies in my collection were never filmed in high definition,I bet they were.
if they came from FILM, they can be scanned into higher res.
film is inherently a very high res media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310189</id>
	<title>Re:If they do this, I will have no choice...</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1244829360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just you wait, they'll find a way to tap the optic nerve directly eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just you wait , they 'll find a way to tap the optic nerve directly eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just you wait, they'll find a way to tap the optic nerve directly eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310389</id>
	<title>Re:If they do this, I will have no choice...</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1244830200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole? Stop the laws of physics? The Human sensory organs are analog. At some point, you are going to have an analog signal traversing the gap from the output device to the human.</p></div><p>Yes, the point of music as well as movies is for humans to experience.  And currently, humans only do that properly in analog.</p><p>However, the 'analog hole' is not a synonym for all analog capture and recording (which would include human viewers), just device capture and recording (this assumes that one does not define a human as a device).  Unless you have a device capable of playing Spiderman II from your brain in HD.  Somehow, I don't think so.</p><p>I always get a chuckle reading the responses where somehow the 'analog hole' is impossible to stop because <i>people are analog!1!!one!!</i>.  Now, I like herring as much as the next person, just not in my conversations.  While I'm sure that the content distributors would like nothing more than to ship blank disks, at this point they still expect that people will want to experience the content.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole?</p></div><p>Well, mandate that unDRM'd A/D converters are banned.  Modify content or display tech to produce detectable patterns for use in the A/D converters.  All new recording devices then refuse to record anything with the pattern.  Very simplified, but do-able, i think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how do you stop the analog hole ?
Stop the laws of physics ?
The Human sensory organs are analog .
At some point , you are going to have an analog signal traversing the gap from the output device to the human.Yes , the point of music as well as movies is for humans to experience .
And currently , humans only do that properly in analog.However , the 'analog hole ' is not a synonym for all analog capture and recording ( which would include human viewers ) , just device capture and recording ( this assumes that one does not define a human as a device ) .
Unless you have a device capable of playing Spiderman II from your brain in HD .
Somehow , I do n't think so.I always get a chuckle reading the responses where somehow the 'analog hole ' is impossible to stop because people are analog ! 1 ! ! one ! ! .
Now , I like herring as much as the next person , just not in my conversations .
While I 'm sure that the content distributors would like nothing more than to ship blank disks , at this point they still expect that people will want to experience the content.Seriously , how do you stop the analog hole ? Well , mandate that unDRM 'd A/D converters are banned .
Modify content or display tech to produce detectable patterns for use in the A/D converters .
All new recording devices then refuse to record anything with the pattern .
Very simplified , but do-able , i think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole?
Stop the laws of physics?
The Human sensory organs are analog.
At some point, you are going to have an analog signal traversing the gap from the output device to the human.Yes, the point of music as well as movies is for humans to experience.
And currently, humans only do that properly in analog.However, the 'analog hole' is not a synonym for all analog capture and recording (which would include human viewers), just device capture and recording (this assumes that one does not define a human as a device).
Unless you have a device capable of playing Spiderman II from your brain in HD.
Somehow, I don't think so.I always get a chuckle reading the responses where somehow the 'analog hole' is impossible to stop because people are analog!1!!one!!.
Now, I like herring as much as the next person, just not in my conversations.
While I'm sure that the content distributors would like nothing more than to ship blank disks, at this point they still expect that people will want to experience the content.Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole?Well, mandate that unDRM'd A/D converters are banned.
Modify content or display tech to produce detectable patterns for use in the A/D converters.
All new recording devices then refuse to record anything with the pattern.
Very simplified, but do-able, i think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310565</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1244830920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because whatever quality they get is good enough, and the extra money doesn't justify the cost.</p></div><p>This is exactly it. "Good enough" is more than enough for most people. DVDs are good enough. In fact, VHS is usually good enough.</p><p>I still watch the occasional VHS tape. When I do, I always find that for the first 20 seconds or so, I'm noticing the poor picture quality in comparison to what I'm used to watching (DVDs and downloaded AVIs). After the first 20 seconds, <i>I'm too engrossed in the story to care about picture quality</i>.</p><p>That's the thing: you don't watch the picture, you watch the <i>movie</i>. It's always nice to have decent quality, and really poor quality can detract from the movie, but as long as the quality is good enough to <i>not</i> detract from the movie, then any higher quality is pointless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because whatever quality they get is good enough , and the extra money does n't justify the cost.This is exactly it .
" Good enough " is more than enough for most people .
DVDs are good enough .
In fact , VHS is usually good enough.I still watch the occasional VHS tape .
When I do , I always find that for the first 20 seconds or so , I 'm noticing the poor picture quality in comparison to what I 'm used to watching ( DVDs and downloaded AVIs ) .
After the first 20 seconds , I 'm too engrossed in the story to care about picture quality.That 's the thing : you do n't watch the picture , you watch the movie .
It 's always nice to have decent quality , and really poor quality can detract from the movie , but as long as the quality is good enough to not detract from the movie , then any higher quality is pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because whatever quality they get is good enough, and the extra money doesn't justify the cost.This is exactly it.
"Good enough" is more than enough for most people.
DVDs are good enough.
In fact, VHS is usually good enough.I still watch the occasional VHS tape.
When I do, I always find that for the first 20 seconds or so, I'm noticing the poor picture quality in comparison to what I'm used to watching (DVDs and downloaded AVIs).
After the first 20 seconds, I'm too engrossed in the story to care about picture quality.That's the thing: you don't watch the picture, you watch the movie.
It's always nice to have decent quality, and really poor quality can detract from the movie, but as long as the quality is good enough to not detract from the movie, then any higher quality is pointless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311213</id>
	<title>I don't know how else to say it...</title>
	<author>Commander South</author>
	<datestamp>1244833380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can see it, you can record it.<br>
If you can hear it, you can record it.<br>
<br>
It is utterly impossible to "phase out the analog hole".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can see it , you can record it .
If you can hear it , you can record it .
It is utterly impossible to " phase out the analog hole " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can see it, you can record it.
If you can hear it, you can record it.
It is utterly impossible to "phase out the analog hole".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307891</id>
	<title>No coincidence that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>2013 is about when most jurisdictions will have switched off analogue TV.  By the time the unwashed masses realise that something is wrong, it will be too late to object or choose to use an alternative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2013 is about when most jurisdictions will have switched off analogue TV .
By the time the unwashed masses realise that something is wrong , it will be too late to object or choose to use an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2013 is about when most jurisdictions will have switched off analogue TV.
By the time the unwashed masses realise that something is wrong, it will be too late to object or choose to use an alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308717</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can tell it's a good product too because of how many exclamation marks they use in their marketing material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can tell it 's a good product too because of how many exclamation marks they use in their marketing material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can tell it's a good product too because of how many exclamation marks they use in their marketing material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311569</id>
	<title>Re:"Good enough"...to pirate.</title>
	<author>DrgnDancer</author>
	<datestamp>1244834700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I think it has a lot to do with portability.  Imax films are analog and extremely high resolution, but they come shipped on pallets.  You could probably fit a digital movie with a similar resolution on a 1 TB hard drive.  Analog can be "good enough", but digital can be "good enough" on a small, relatively rugged silver disk.  VCRs were "good enough" for a lot of years, but the DVD was a HUGE improvement.  They were more durable, smaller, didn't suffer from degradation over time and viewing, stored some cute "extra" content, and had a better picture.</p><p>If I capture analog content into a digital format it gains most of those advantages.  Especially if it was high quality analog content to begin with (as in the case of recapturing analog content that was just taken from a high quality digital source.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think it has a lot to do with portability .
Imax films are analog and extremely high resolution , but they come shipped on pallets .
You could probably fit a digital movie with a similar resolution on a 1 TB hard drive .
Analog can be " good enough " , but digital can be " good enough " on a small , relatively rugged silver disk .
VCRs were " good enough " for a lot of years , but the DVD was a HUGE improvement .
They were more durable , smaller , did n't suffer from degradation over time and viewing , stored some cute " extra " content , and had a better picture.If I capture analog content into a digital format it gains most of those advantages .
Especially if it was high quality analog content to begin with ( as in the case of recapturing analog content that was just taken from a high quality digital source .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think it has a lot to do with portability.
Imax films are analog and extremely high resolution, but they come shipped on pallets.
You could probably fit a digital movie with a similar resolution on a 1 TB hard drive.
Analog can be "good enough", but digital can be "good enough" on a small, relatively rugged silver disk.
VCRs were "good enough" for a lot of years, but the DVD was a HUGE improvement.
They were more durable, smaller, didn't suffer from degradation over time and viewing, stored some cute "extra" content, and had a better picture.If I capture analog content into a digital format it gains most of those advantages.
Especially if it was high quality analog content to begin with (as in the case of recapturing analog content that was just taken from a high quality digital source.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869</id>
	<title>Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>tjonnyc999</author>
	<datestamp>1244820300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HDMI already has the awesome encryption of HDCP between the device and the display unit</p></div><p>As usual, an encryption system that (likely) cost millions to develop, can be defeated with a simple device.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.hdfury.com/" title="hdfury.com">http://www.hdfury.com/</a> [hdfury.com] <br> <br>

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with this company in any way; this is not an endorsement, only a link to a potentially useful resource.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI already has the awesome encryption of HDCP between the device and the display unitAs usual , an encryption system that ( likely ) cost millions to develop , can be defeated with a simple device .
http : //www.hdfury.com/ [ hdfury.com ] Disclaimer : I am not affiliated with this company in any way ; this is not an endorsement , only a link to a potentially useful resource .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI already has the awesome encryption of HDCP between the device and the display unitAs usual, an encryption system that (likely) cost millions to develop, can be defeated with a simple device.
http://www.hdfury.com/ [hdfury.com]  

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with this company in any way; this is not an endorsement, only a link to a potentially useful resource.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308109</id>
	<title>Just wait...</title>
	<author>ThePhilips</author>
	<datestamp>1244821140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole.</p> </div><p> Just wait for MPAA to get a wind of watermarking and demand camcorder makers to embed watermark recognition to disable video capture of the oh-so-precious intellectual property of theirs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies , creating another analog hole .
Just wait for MPAA to get a wind of watermarking and demand camcorder makers to embed watermark recognition to disable video capture of the oh-so-precious intellectual property of theirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole.
Just wait for MPAA to get a wind of watermarking and demand camcorder makers to embed watermark recognition to disable video capture of the oh-so-precious intellectual property of theirs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311193</id>
	<title>Re:Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>DrgnDancer</author>
	<datestamp>1244833320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a good bit more technical that "Average Joe" and I couldn't care less about the quality difference.  if you stick them next to each other and I squint I can tell the difference between upscaled DVD and BR on a decent sized HD TV, but since I don't usually have them sitting next to each other DVD looks fine.  I was actually considering a BR player for a while, but when I moved recently I noticed that my DVD player had a YPrPb out.  When I hooked that up and saw what an upscaled DVD looked like, I gave up my BR plans immediately (Made me wish I'd pulled the DVD player out to look at the back 8 months earlier when I bought the TV).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a good bit more technical that " Average Joe " and I could n't care less about the quality difference .
if you stick them next to each other and I squint I can tell the difference between upscaled DVD and BR on a decent sized HD TV , but since I do n't usually have them sitting next to each other DVD looks fine .
I was actually considering a BR player for a while , but when I moved recently I noticed that my DVD player had a YPrPb out .
When I hooked that up and saw what an upscaled DVD looked like , I gave up my BR plans immediately ( Made me wish I 'd pulled the DVD player out to look at the back 8 months earlier when I bought the TV ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a good bit more technical that "Average Joe" and I couldn't care less about the quality difference.
if you stick them next to each other and I squint I can tell the difference between upscaled DVD and BR on a decent sized HD TV, but since I don't usually have them sitting next to each other DVD looks fine.
I was actually considering a BR player for a while, but when I moved recently I noticed that my DVD player had a YPrPb out.
When I hooked that up and saw what an upscaled DVD looked like, I gave up my BR plans immediately (Made me wish I'd pulled the DVD player out to look at the back 8 months earlier when I bought the TV).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310555</id>
	<title>video camera = ghetto pirating</title>
	<author>logicassasin</author>
	<datestamp>1244830860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=344967&amp;no\_d2=1&amp;cid=21179919" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=344967&amp;no\_d2=1&amp;cid=21179919</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>^^^ That reply was one of my responses to this article - <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/30/2034242" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/30/2034242</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>"... And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole.'"</p><p>The MPAA doesn't really realize just how many people will do something like this. I'm pretty sure there's guiys out there still making VHS copies of whatever the latest DVD release is because there's still a market for VHS movies (though quite small). Those people that still cling to VHS, and to a far lesser degree Beta and Hi8, are interested in watching the movie. They could care less about the "extras", or THX surround sound or anything of the sort. They wanna watch the movie; that's it.</p><p>So, if all that's left for pirates is to point a video camera at a TV playing the movie, then that's what they're going to do. People will still buy those bootlegs, they'll still download them from the net irregardless of how inferior the picture and sound quality is. They just want to watch the movie; that's it. Many will be fine with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 344967&amp;no \ _d2 = 1&amp;cid = 21179919 [ slashdot.org ] ^ ^ ^ That reply was one of my responses to this article - http : //yro.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/10/30/2034242 [ slashdot.org ] " ... And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies , creating another analog hole .
' " The MPAA does n't really realize just how many people will do something like this .
I 'm pretty sure there 's guiys out there still making VHS copies of whatever the latest DVD release is because there 's still a market for VHS movies ( though quite small ) .
Those people that still cling to VHS , and to a far lesser degree Beta and Hi8 , are interested in watching the movie .
They could care less about the " extras " , or THX surround sound or anything of the sort .
They wan na watch the movie ; that 's it.So , if all that 's left for pirates is to point a video camera at a TV playing the movie , then that 's what they 're going to do .
People will still buy those bootlegs , they 'll still download them from the net irregardless of how inferior the picture and sound quality is .
They just want to watch the movie ; that 's it .
Many will be fine with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=344967&amp;no\_d2=1&amp;cid=21179919 [slashdot.org]^^^ That reply was one of my responses to this article - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/30/2034242 [slashdot.org]"... And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole.
'"The MPAA doesn't really realize just how many people will do something like this.
I'm pretty sure there's guiys out there still making VHS copies of whatever the latest DVD release is because there's still a market for VHS movies (though quite small).
Those people that still cling to VHS, and to a far lesser degree Beta and Hi8, are interested in watching the movie.
They could care less about the "extras", or THX surround sound or anything of the sort.
They wanna watch the movie; that's it.So, if all that's left for pirates is to point a video camera at a TV playing the movie, then that's what they're going to do.
People will still buy those bootlegs, they'll still download them from the net irregardless of how inferior the picture and sound quality is.
They just want to watch the movie; that's it.
Many will be fine with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>AcidPenguin9873</author>
	<datestamp>1244821680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The HDCP authorities can revoke that device's HDCP key for violating whatever clause in the HDCP license agreement (not allowing analog holes, for example).  Then any new Blu-Ray discs will have that device's key on a revocation list, and those discs won't play back with it.  I don't think any HDCP keys have been revoked yet, and who knows if any ever will be, but the mechanism is in place to disable devices like this from being used on future media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The HDCP authorities can revoke that device 's HDCP key for violating whatever clause in the HDCP license agreement ( not allowing analog holes , for example ) .
Then any new Blu-Ray discs will have that device 's key on a revocation list , and those discs wo n't play back with it .
I do n't think any HDCP keys have been revoked yet , and who knows if any ever will be , but the mechanism is in place to disable devices like this from being used on future media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HDCP authorities can revoke that device's HDCP key for violating whatever clause in the HDCP license agreement (not allowing analog holes, for example).
Then any new Blu-Ray discs will have that device's key on a revocation list, and those discs won't play back with it.
I don't think any HDCP keys have been revoked yet, and who knows if any ever will be, but the mechanism is in place to disable devices like this from being used on future media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309223</id>
	<title>Re:Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1244825880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is a killing point.  Back 6 years ago my $4800.00 Farujia Upscaler and my $8500.00 DENON dvd player produced an incredible picture in my 108" screen home theater.</p><p>Today a $299.00 upscaling DVD player produces as good as a picture as my high end gear.  IF a normal consumer on their 720P 42" screen compared a DVD on a good upscaling DVD player to a bluray from their normal sitting position,  they generally dont notice enough of a difference to buy the bluray player and it's overpriced discs.</p><p>They simply cant entice the general public to buy into it.  And with the economy the way it is now,  It's even harder.</p><p>I actually reccomend to people to go on amazon.com and buy a HDDVD player and grab HDDVD's for $1.00 to $6.00 each  as well  Far cheaper and you get the same video quality but no new releases, which many people dont care about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is a killing point .
Back 6 years ago my $ 4800.00 Farujia Upscaler and my $ 8500.00 DENON dvd player produced an incredible picture in my 108 " screen home theater.Today a $ 299.00 upscaling DVD player produces as good as a picture as my high end gear .
IF a normal consumer on their 720P 42 " screen compared a DVD on a good upscaling DVD player to a bluray from their normal sitting position , they generally dont notice enough of a difference to buy the bluray player and it 's overpriced discs.They simply cant entice the general public to buy into it .
And with the economy the way it is now , It 's even harder.I actually reccomend to people to go on amazon.com and buy a HDDVD player and grab HDDVD 's for $ 1.00 to $ 6.00 each as well Far cheaper and you get the same video quality but no new releases , which many people dont care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is a killing point.
Back 6 years ago my $4800.00 Farujia Upscaler and my $8500.00 DENON dvd player produced an incredible picture in my 108" screen home theater.Today a $299.00 upscaling DVD player produces as good as a picture as my high end gear.
IF a normal consumer on their 720P 42" screen compared a DVD on a good upscaling DVD player to a bluray from their normal sitting position,  they generally dont notice enough of a difference to buy the bluray player and it's overpriced discs.They simply cant entice the general public to buy into it.
And with the economy the way it is now,  It's even harder.I actually reccomend to people to go on amazon.com and buy a HDDVD player and grab HDDVD's for $1.00 to $6.00 each  as well  Far cheaper and you get the same video quality but no new releases, which many people dont care about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308833</id>
	<title>Err....</title>
	<author>DavidR1991</author>
	<datestamp>1244824080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can see it, you can copy it. Simple as that. They can plug as many holes as they like, but unless they stop you watching the content in the first place, they can <b>never</b> stop piracy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can see it , you can copy it .
Simple as that .
They can plug as many holes as they like , but unless they stop you watching the content in the first place , they can never stop piracy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can see it, you can copy it.
Simple as that.
They can plug as many holes as they like, but unless they stop you watching the content in the first place, they can never stop piracy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309127</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1244825460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BluRay and HDDVD CAN look better than DVD.   Problem is a lot of the releases are really old and are crappy to begin with.  My HDDVD copy of the Evil Dead is not better than the DVD I have.   Hell the TopGUN copy is only marginally better than the DVD.</p><p>Recent releases?  YES.  Quantum of Solace is ROCKIN' clear.  but most of the classics or even films made 4 years ago are worthless on BluRAY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BluRay and HDDVD CAN look better than DVD .
Problem is a lot of the releases are really old and are crappy to begin with .
My HDDVD copy of the Evil Dead is not better than the DVD I have .
Hell the TopGUN copy is only marginally better than the DVD.Recent releases ?
YES. Quantum of Solace is ROCKIN ' clear .
but most of the classics or even films made 4 years ago are worthless on BluRAY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BluRay and HDDVD CAN look better than DVD.
Problem is a lot of the releases are really old and are crappy to begin with.
My HDDVD copy of the Evil Dead is not better than the DVD I have.
Hell the TopGUN copy is only marginally better than the DVD.Recent releases?
YES.  Quantum of Solace is ROCKIN' clear.
but most of the classics or even films made 4 years ago are worthless on BluRAY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312243</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1244837220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blu-Ray will keep on improving as time goes on, you say?<br>That's what I was hoping for with ordinary DVD.<br>They are cutting it a bit fine if they are going to bring in all the different camera angles and alternate endings and stuff that we were promised when DVD came out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu-Ray will keep on improving as time goes on , you say ? That 's what I was hoping for with ordinary DVD.They are cutting it a bit fine if they are going to bring in all the different camera angles and alternate endings and stuff that we were promised when DVD came out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu-Ray will keep on improving as time goes on, you say?That's what I was hoping for with ordinary DVD.They are cutting it a bit fine if they are going to bring in all the different camera angles and alternate endings and stuff that we were promised when DVD came out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28313629</id>
	<title>Re:will blu ray succeed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copying VHS involved a piece of masking tape!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copying VHS involved a piece of masking tape !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copying VHS involved a piece of masking tape!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307961</id>
	<title>Plugging the analog hole</title>
	<author>Narnie</author>
	<datestamp>1244820600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I expect the next 188-page PDF will feature a device that will plug directly into your forehead to inject a digital signal to your brain. <br> <br>NEWS FLASH: Until we start augmenting ourselves with electronics, people perceive the environment around them in ANALOG ONLY! To me that sound like a pretty big hole to plug.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect the next 188-page PDF will feature a device that will plug directly into your forehead to inject a digital signal to your brain .
NEWS FLASH : Until we start augmenting ourselves with electronics , people perceive the environment around them in ANALOG ONLY !
To me that sound like a pretty big hole to plug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect the next 188-page PDF will feature a device that will plug directly into your forehead to inject a digital signal to your brain.
NEWS FLASH: Until we start augmenting ourselves with electronics, people perceive the environment around them in ANALOG ONLY!
To me that sound like a pretty big hole to plug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309695</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1244827560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands....When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology"</i>
<br> <br>
I was in the same boat, very happy with my SD CRT, until I bought a ps3 for one particular game.  The game looks great, but when I tried playing other games like Quake Wars and Pixel Junk Monsters, the text and details are just too small and fuzzy to see.  I've tried messing with the settings but it doesn't seem to help, the games were just not designed with SD in mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold , dead hands....When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology " I was in the same boat , very happy with my SD CRT , until I bought a ps3 for one particular game .
The game looks great , but when I tried playing other games like Quake Wars and Pixel Junk Monsters , the text and details are just too small and fuzzy to see .
I 've tried messing with the settings but it does n't seem to help , the games were just not designed with SD in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands....When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology"
 
I was in the same boat, very happy with my SD CRT, until I bought a ps3 for one particular game.
The game looks great, but when I tried playing other games like Quake Wars and Pixel Junk Monsters, the text and details are just too small and fuzzy to see.
I've tried messing with the settings but it doesn't seem to help, the games were just not designed with SD in mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310135</id>
	<title>Re:will blu ray succeed?</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1244829120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont forget VHS has advantages that DVD couldnt match economically for a very long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont forget VHS has advantages that DVD couldnt match economically for a very long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont forget VHS has advantages that DVD couldnt match economically for a very long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310979</id>
	<title>So, super duper absolutley unbreakable Player...</title>
	<author>Chris Tucker</author>
	<datestamp>1244832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to TV DRM comes to BluRay and all players sold in the United States tomorrow.</p><p>In two weeks, you'll pay US$50 for a player made in China on the gray market that'll have a backpanel FULL of ports, each one squirting out the unencrypted video and audio, as well as region free.</p><p>You'll also be able to get at the same time, the "upgraded" digital to analog TV converter, also equipped with RF, composite, digital, etc, in/out ports for your old analog TV.<br>With an easily removed label: "Not to be used for avoiding DRM!"</p><p>In three weeks, Mac The Ripper, Handbrake, FFMPEG, etc, et al will have upgraded versions.</p><p>In a month, TPB, Demonoid, all those NZB sites, etc, et al,  will be back to normal with unencrypted rips of all the latest DVDs, ready for downloading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to TV DRM comes to BluRay and all players sold in the United States tomorrow.In two weeks , you 'll pay US $ 50 for a player made in China on the gray market that 'll have a backpanel FULL of ports , each one squirting out the unencrypted video and audio , as well as region free.You 'll also be able to get at the same time , the " upgraded " digital to analog TV converter , also equipped with RF , composite , digital , etc , in/out ports for your old analog TV.With an easily removed label : " Not to be used for avoiding DRM !
" In three weeks , Mac The Ripper , Handbrake , FFMPEG , etc , et al will have upgraded versions.In a month , TPB , Demonoid , all those NZB sites , etc , et al , will be back to normal with unencrypted rips of all the latest DVDs , ready for downloading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to TV DRM comes to BluRay and all players sold in the United States tomorrow.In two weeks, you'll pay US$50 for a player made in China on the gray market that'll have a backpanel FULL of ports, each one squirting out the unencrypted video and audio, as well as region free.You'll also be able to get at the same time, the "upgraded" digital to analog TV converter, also equipped with RF, composite, digital, etc, in/out ports for your old analog TV.With an easily removed label: "Not to be used for avoiding DRM!
"In three weeks, Mac The Ripper, Handbrake, FFMPEG, etc, et al will have upgraded versions.In a month, TPB, Demonoid, all those NZB sites, etc, et al,  will be back to normal with unencrypted rips of all the latest DVDs, ready for downloading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309203</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1244825820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't wait until they do something like this.  Someone will sue the studio, forcing them to re-release the disc without the revocation list, effectively crippling the DRM for violating fair use rights.  That will be a wonderful day.  In my dreamworld, the DOJ follows-up with an investigation for antitrust violations and includes all the other MPAA/RIAA members.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait until they do something like this .
Someone will sue the studio , forcing them to re-release the disc without the revocation list , effectively crippling the DRM for violating fair use rights .
That will be a wonderful day .
In my dreamworld , the DOJ follows-up with an investigation for antitrust violations and includes all the other MPAA/RIAA members .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait until they do something like this.
Someone will sue the studio, forcing them to re-release the disc without the revocation list, effectively crippling the DRM for violating fair use rights.
That will be a wonderful day.
In my dreamworld, the DOJ follows-up with an investigation for antitrust violations and includes all the other MPAA/RIAA members.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28315089</id>
	<title>Re:will blu ray succeed?</title>
	<author>sponga</author>
	<datestamp>1244806500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"An interesting plaything for people who can afford it."<br>What? come on...</p><p>Because technology prices never come down over time right? Come on, stop playing the game that the players will never get down to the $50 level and discs will become $5 a pop in 6 years.</p><p>Arguments like that start to get old around here, I mean even the Blu-Ray discs are starting to get around the $10-15 a disc now at FRY's and add to it that HDTV screens are getting dirt cheap.<br>If anything is going to take Blu-Ray down it will be VOD(Video On Demand)/Netflix(stocked with BR) and it will not be streaming movies from the internet; nobody is gonna watch a movie on their computer screen.</p><p>Only added cost to the product is going to be things like it degrading in quality over years like VHS and discs prone to easy scratching; I cannot count the number of times I had sat down to watch a VHS tape only to find that somebody had not rewinded it  and don't whine to me about 5 seconds of your life taken away by an FBI message. Good old extra piece of equiptment just for rewinding VHS, oh the glorious days.</p><p>Add to it Blu-Ray has backwards compatiblity and upscaling of DVD.</p><p>Comparing Plasma to Blu-Ray isn't fair, it would be more fair to compare it to HD-DVD that is a dead technology from the start without major backing. I bet some of the advocates of HD-DVD are really regretting buying that dust collector and some of the most incompatible discs ever; there was a lot of bitterness over that war and you can see it to this day in people who scream that Blu-Ray is a dead technology. Talk about getting suckered by MS and left high and dry; they should all be offered a full refund for that.<br>I am waiting for $400 40"+ HDTV's and $50 BR players, add to it when blank Blu-Ray disc get cheap I am going to literally be able to cram a couple movies/TV shows on one disc and expanding storage of layers.<br>
&nbsp; Just wait till you can pick up a cake of 100(50GB per disc) BR disc for $20 and with my Verizon FIOS; holy toledo Batman!!</p><p>Anyways you can look back at this post in 5 years and think of me as the Nostradamus, repeat after me "technology gets cheaper over time"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" An interesting plaything for people who can afford it. " What ?
come on...Because technology prices never come down over time right ?
Come on , stop playing the game that the players will never get down to the $ 50 level and discs will become $ 5 a pop in 6 years.Arguments like that start to get old around here , I mean even the Blu-Ray discs are starting to get around the $ 10-15 a disc now at FRY 's and add to it that HDTV screens are getting dirt cheap.If anything is going to take Blu-Ray down it will be VOD ( Video On Demand ) /Netflix ( stocked with BR ) and it will not be streaming movies from the internet ; nobody is gon na watch a movie on their computer screen.Only added cost to the product is going to be things like it degrading in quality over years like VHS and discs prone to easy scratching ; I can not count the number of times I had sat down to watch a VHS tape only to find that somebody had not rewinded it and do n't whine to me about 5 seconds of your life taken away by an FBI message .
Good old extra piece of equiptment just for rewinding VHS , oh the glorious days.Add to it Blu-Ray has backwards compatiblity and upscaling of DVD.Comparing Plasma to Blu-Ray is n't fair , it would be more fair to compare it to HD-DVD that is a dead technology from the start without major backing .
I bet some of the advocates of HD-DVD are really regretting buying that dust collector and some of the most incompatible discs ever ; there was a lot of bitterness over that war and you can see it to this day in people who scream that Blu-Ray is a dead technology .
Talk about getting suckered by MS and left high and dry ; they should all be offered a full refund for that.I am waiting for $ 400 40 " + HDTV 's and $ 50 BR players , add to it when blank Blu-Ray disc get cheap I am going to literally be able to cram a couple movies/TV shows on one disc and expanding storage of layers .
  Just wait till you can pick up a cake of 100 ( 50GB per disc ) BR disc for $ 20 and with my Verizon FIOS ; holy toledo Batman !
! Anyways you can look back at this post in 5 years and think of me as the Nostradamus , repeat after me " technology gets cheaper over time "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"An interesting plaything for people who can afford it."What?
come on...Because technology prices never come down over time right?
Come on, stop playing the game that the players will never get down to the $50 level and discs will become $5 a pop in 6 years.Arguments like that start to get old around here, I mean even the Blu-Ray discs are starting to get around the $10-15 a disc now at FRY's and add to it that HDTV screens are getting dirt cheap.If anything is going to take Blu-Ray down it will be VOD(Video On Demand)/Netflix(stocked with BR) and it will not be streaming movies from the internet; nobody is gonna watch a movie on their computer screen.Only added cost to the product is going to be things like it degrading in quality over years like VHS and discs prone to easy scratching; I cannot count the number of times I had sat down to watch a VHS tape only to find that somebody had not rewinded it  and don't whine to me about 5 seconds of your life taken away by an FBI message.
Good old extra piece of equiptment just for rewinding VHS, oh the glorious days.Add to it Blu-Ray has backwards compatiblity and upscaling of DVD.Comparing Plasma to Blu-Ray isn't fair, it would be more fair to compare it to HD-DVD that is a dead technology from the start without major backing.
I bet some of the advocates of HD-DVD are really regretting buying that dust collector and some of the most incompatible discs ever; there was a lot of bitterness over that war and you can see it to this day in people who scream that Blu-Ray is a dead technology.
Talk about getting suckered by MS and left high and dry; they should all be offered a full refund for that.I am waiting for $400 40"+ HDTV's and $50 BR players, add to it when blank Blu-Ray disc get cheap I am going to literally be able to cram a couple movies/TV shows on one disc and expanding storage of layers.
  Just wait till you can pick up a cake of 100(50GB per disc) BR disc for $20 and with my Verizon FIOS; holy toledo Batman!
!Anyways you can look back at this post in 5 years and think of me as the Nostradamus, repeat after me "technology gets cheaper over time"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311641</id>
	<title>Re:will blu ray succeed?</title>
	<author>Xarin</author>
	<datestamp>1244835000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that Blu-ray is the last physical media format for movies.  Movies will instead be distributed electronically.  As it has been pointed out in other posts, consumers want convenience.  Renting movies and returning them is not convenient.  Also, I believe that consumers are tiring of purchasing a shelf full of media in one format and being told that it is now obsolete.  It is also hard to justify buying shelves, allocating a bunch of space, having to pack and unpack them every time one moves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that Blu-ray is the last physical media format for movies .
Movies will instead be distributed electronically .
As it has been pointed out in other posts , consumers want convenience .
Renting movies and returning them is not convenient .
Also , I believe that consumers are tiring of purchasing a shelf full of media in one format and being told that it is now obsolete .
It is also hard to justify buying shelves , allocating a bunch of space , having to pack and unpack them every time one moves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that Blu-ray is the last physical media format for movies.
Movies will instead be distributed electronically.
As it has been pointed out in other posts, consumers want convenience.
Renting movies and returning them is not convenient.
Also, I believe that consumers are tiring of purchasing a shelf full of media in one format and being told that it is now obsolete.
It is also hard to justify buying shelves, allocating a bunch of space, having to pack and unpack them every time one moves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310073</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1244828940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your eyes and ears work and you have a good TV and stereo system, the return on investment is very high, assuming you like movies and TV in the first place.  As for your movie collection, which were probably filmed</p><blockquote><div><p>The maximum resolutions that film currently offers are 2485&#195;--2970 or 1420&#195;--3390, UHD, a future digital video format, will offer a massive resolution of 7680&#195;--4320, surpassing all current film resolutions. The only viable competitor to these new innovations is IMAX which can play film content at an extreme 10000&#195;--7000 resolution</p></div></blockquote><p>All of these are much higher than Blu-Ray's 1920x1080 which they would be down-scaled to when scanned into a digital format.</p><p>Audio of course has a nearly infinite resolution, a very large amount of which is tapped by current Dolby Digital and dts technology, but uncompressed PCM in 7+ channels does sound noticeably better.</p><p>In the end of course, your enjoyment mileage may vary, but don't go spreading falsehoods about the technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your eyes and ears work and you have a good TV and stereo system , the return on investment is very high , assuming you like movies and TV in the first place .
As for your movie collection , which were probably filmedThe maximum resolutions that film currently offers are 2485   --2970 or 1420   --3390 , UHD , a future digital video format , will offer a massive resolution of 7680   --4320 , surpassing all current film resolutions .
The only viable competitor to these new innovations is IMAX which can play film content at an extreme 10000   --7000 resolutionAll of these are much higher than Blu-Ray 's 1920x1080 which they would be down-scaled to when scanned into a digital format.Audio of course has a nearly infinite resolution , a very large amount of which is tapped by current Dolby Digital and dts technology , but uncompressed PCM in 7 + channels does sound noticeably better.In the end of course , your enjoyment mileage may vary , but do n't go spreading falsehoods about the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your eyes and ears work and you have a good TV and stereo system, the return on investment is very high, assuming you like movies and TV in the first place.
As for your movie collection, which were probably filmedThe maximum resolutions that film currently offers are 2485Ã--2970 or 1420Ã--3390, UHD, a future digital video format, will offer a massive resolution of 7680Ã--4320, surpassing all current film resolutions.
The only viable competitor to these new innovations is IMAX which can play film content at an extreme 10000Ã--7000 resolutionAll of these are much higher than Blu-Ray's 1920x1080 which they would be down-scaled to when scanned into a digital format.Audio of course has a nearly infinite resolution, a very large amount of which is tapped by current Dolby Digital and dts technology, but uncompressed PCM in 7+ channels does sound noticeably better.In the end of course, your enjoyment mileage may vary, but don't go spreading falsehoods about the technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309251</id>
	<title>Re:Ignore them?</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1244826000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can live without their CODECs, too.</p><p>boycott all 'hd audio' codecs.</p><p>without going into long boring tech reasons, the new 'hd audio' codecs are lying sacks of shit.  the analog sections of your typical home system can't keep up with even 24bit/96k audio.  do you really think that 'lossless' audio on multichannel is going to make your life that much sweeter?  really?  are you THAT shallow?</p><p>I get sick when I see people plunking down hard earned money to REBUY their stereos because - well - the studios told them to!</p><p>my god, people - think!  you are being played.</p><p>all movies will continue to have 5.1 audio tracks.  you don't NEED hd audio tracks - its the same thing but with more word depth and more drm.  its not regular spdif anymore - its a closed spec and you can't even encode to it (like you can with spdif/pcm).</p><p>hd audio codecs: just say no!  keep your old stereos.  don't buy into the fake hype.  shitting movie sound tracks will still be shitty; their mixing and 'loudness wars' won't get any better by having more bit depth in your digital audio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can live without their CODECs , too.boycott all 'hd audio ' codecs.without going into long boring tech reasons , the new 'hd audio ' codecs are lying sacks of shit .
the analog sections of your typical home system ca n't keep up with even 24bit/96k audio .
do you really think that 'lossless ' audio on multichannel is going to make your life that much sweeter ?
really ? are you THAT shallow ? I get sick when I see people plunking down hard earned money to REBUY their stereos because - well - the studios told them to ! my god , people - think !
you are being played.all movies will continue to have 5.1 audio tracks .
you do n't NEED hd audio tracks - its the same thing but with more word depth and more drm .
its not regular spdif anymore - its a closed spec and you ca n't even encode to it ( like you can with spdif/pcm ) .hd audio codecs : just say no !
keep your old stereos .
do n't buy into the fake hype .
shitting movie sound tracks will still be shitty ; their mixing and 'loudness wars ' wo n't get any better by having more bit depth in your digital audio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can live without their CODECs, too.boycott all 'hd audio' codecs.without going into long boring tech reasons, the new 'hd audio' codecs are lying sacks of shit.
the analog sections of your typical home system can't keep up with even 24bit/96k audio.
do you really think that 'lossless' audio on multichannel is going to make your life that much sweeter?
really?  are you THAT shallow?I get sick when I see people plunking down hard earned money to REBUY their stereos because - well - the studios told them to!my god, people - think!
you are being played.all movies will continue to have 5.1 audio tracks.
you don't NEED hd audio tracks - its the same thing but with more word depth and more drm.
its not regular spdif anymore - its a closed spec and you can't even encode to it (like you can with spdif/pcm).hd audio codecs: just say no!
keep your old stereos.
don't buy into the fake hype.
shitting movie sound tracks will still be shitty; their mixing and 'loudness wars' won't get any better by having more bit depth in your digital audio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308635</id>
	<title>Re:opting out</title>
	<author>cdfh</author>
	<datestamp>1244823240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now instead of sitting on the couch wasting 90-120 minutes of my life at a time, I'm spending that time enjoying getting around</p></div><p>Or to reverse that argument:</p><p>Now, instead of sitting on my bike, wasting days of my life travelling, I'm spending my time enjoying films in 90-120 minute blocks!</p><p>:-)</p><p>Disclaimer: I've just come back from a long weekend touring with my bike</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now instead of sitting on the couch wasting 90-120 minutes of my life at a time , I 'm spending that time enjoying getting aroundOr to reverse that argument : Now , instead of sitting on my bike , wasting days of my life travelling , I 'm spending my time enjoying films in 90-120 minute blocks !
: - ) Disclaimer : I 've just come back from a long weekend touring with my bike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now instead of sitting on the couch wasting 90-120 minutes of my life at a time, I'm spending that time enjoying getting aroundOr to reverse that argument:Now, instead of sitting on my bike, wasting days of my life travelling, I'm spending my time enjoying films in 90-120 minute blocks!
:-)Disclaimer: I've just come back from a long weekend touring with my bike
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28316581</id>
	<title>Re:will blu ray succeed?</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1244818440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I already thought that Blu Ray was destined for a short lifespan, with online distribution quickly supplanting it, but this decision to remove support for non-HDMI video connections will just hasten the demise. If they are removing the capability from players, then it is a near certainty that new discs coming out  after that date will require such a player, so anyone buying a Blu Ray player now will be unable to buy content for it in 4 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already thought that Blu Ray was destined for a short lifespan , with online distribution quickly supplanting it , but this decision to remove support for non-HDMI video connections will just hasten the demise .
If they are removing the capability from players , then it is a near certainty that new discs coming out after that date will require such a player , so anyone buying a Blu Ray player now will be unable to buy content for it in 4 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already thought that Blu Ray was destined for a short lifespan, with online distribution quickly supplanting it, but this decision to remove support for non-HDMI video connections will just hasten the demise.
If they are removing the capability from players, then it is a near certainty that new discs coming out  after that date will require such a player, so anyone buying a Blu Ray player now will be unable to buy content for it in 4 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28318265</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>kvezach</author>
	<datestamp>1244884980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then they can merely <a href="http://apache.dataloss.nl/~fred/www.nunce.org/hdcp/hdcp111901.htm" title="dataloss.nl">manufacture their own keys</a> [dataloss.nl]. Granted, it requires knowledge of the private keys of a number of devices, but once that's done, game over. The paper also shows how to impersonate another device by only using its public key.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they can merely manufacture their own keys [ dataloss.nl ] .
Granted , it requires knowledge of the private keys of a number of devices , but once that 's done , game over .
The paper also shows how to impersonate another device by only using its public key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they can merely manufacture their own keys [dataloss.nl].
Granted, it requires knowledge of the private keys of a number of devices, but once that's done, game over.
The paper also shows how to impersonate another device by only using its public key.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310265</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>cens0r</author>
	<datestamp>1244829660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What movies do you have in your collection, because your statement doesn't seem to make sense.  Almost all movies and TV shows are shot on film.  Only the cheapest TV shows and live events were shot on video, and even then almost all the video for TV for at least the last 5 years has been HD video.
<br> <br>
Even very old movies look really great on Blu-ray because you get high resolution scans of the original negatives or film stock.  Most people agree that 35mm film has an effective resolution of somewhere between 1.5x - 2x Blu-ray, so pretty much any movie is going to look better on Blu-ray than DVD (unless the film stock was badly damaged or something).  About the only example I can think of where the quality wasn't leaps and bounds better than DVD is my Firefly Series.  It was shot on film, but all the special effects were rendered in 480p (because Fox wasn't broadcasting in real HD at the time).  Because of this, the effects shots don't look much better than the DVD run through a good up-converter.  However, the non-effects shots look much better.
<br> <br>
I also don't think the costs are exorbitant.   You basically can't get a TV anymore that isn't HD.  I tend to be on a 5 year or so TV upgrade cycle, even if you are on a longer cycle; most people are going to have an HDTV shortly.  Blu-ray players are still a little too pricey, but if you wait around you can get one in the $150 range.  And you can get a pretty good one with profile 2.0 and netflix for less than $250.  I paid around $500 for my first DVD player, so I think the price of the players is a little overblown by people who didn't start buying DVD players until they were under $100.  By this time next year I expect players to be under $100.  I also don't think the movies themselves are that expensive.  I never pay more than $20 for a movie I purchase.  Sure it might retail for $39, but Amazon and other places discount the heavily.  If you wait for sales and also look for used copies the movies aren't bad at all.  Plus it costs me more than $20 to take my wife to a theater, so the purchase price of the movies actually seems like a good deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What movies do you have in your collection , because your statement does n't seem to make sense .
Almost all movies and TV shows are shot on film .
Only the cheapest TV shows and live events were shot on video , and even then almost all the video for TV for at least the last 5 years has been HD video .
Even very old movies look really great on Blu-ray because you get high resolution scans of the original negatives or film stock .
Most people agree that 35mm film has an effective resolution of somewhere between 1.5x - 2x Blu-ray , so pretty much any movie is going to look better on Blu-ray than DVD ( unless the film stock was badly damaged or something ) .
About the only example I can think of where the quality was n't leaps and bounds better than DVD is my Firefly Series .
It was shot on film , but all the special effects were rendered in 480p ( because Fox was n't broadcasting in real HD at the time ) .
Because of this , the effects shots do n't look much better than the DVD run through a good up-converter .
However , the non-effects shots look much better .
I also do n't think the costs are exorbitant .
You basically ca n't get a TV anymore that is n't HD .
I tend to be on a 5 year or so TV upgrade cycle , even if you are on a longer cycle ; most people are going to have an HDTV shortly .
Blu-ray players are still a little too pricey , but if you wait around you can get one in the $ 150 range .
And you can get a pretty good one with profile 2.0 and netflix for less than $ 250 .
I paid around $ 500 for my first DVD player , so I think the price of the players is a little overblown by people who did n't start buying DVD players until they were under $ 100 .
By this time next year I expect players to be under $ 100 .
I also do n't think the movies themselves are that expensive .
I never pay more than $ 20 for a movie I purchase .
Sure it might retail for $ 39 , but Amazon and other places discount the heavily .
If you wait for sales and also look for used copies the movies are n't bad at all .
Plus it costs me more than $ 20 to take my wife to a theater , so the purchase price of the movies actually seems like a good deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What movies do you have in your collection, because your statement doesn't seem to make sense.
Almost all movies and TV shows are shot on film.
Only the cheapest TV shows and live events were shot on video, and even then almost all the video for TV for at least the last 5 years has been HD video.
Even very old movies look really great on Blu-ray because you get high resolution scans of the original negatives or film stock.
Most people agree that 35mm film has an effective resolution of somewhere between 1.5x - 2x Blu-ray, so pretty much any movie is going to look better on Blu-ray than DVD (unless the film stock was badly damaged or something).
About the only example I can think of where the quality wasn't leaps and bounds better than DVD is my Firefly Series.
It was shot on film, but all the special effects were rendered in 480p (because Fox wasn't broadcasting in real HD at the time).
Because of this, the effects shots don't look much better than the DVD run through a good up-converter.
However, the non-effects shots look much better.
I also don't think the costs are exorbitant.
You basically can't get a TV anymore that isn't HD.
I tend to be on a 5 year or so TV upgrade cycle, even if you are on a longer cycle; most people are going to have an HDTV shortly.
Blu-ray players are still a little too pricey, but if you wait around you can get one in the $150 range.
And you can get a pretty good one with profile 2.0 and netflix for less than $250.
I paid around $500 for my first DVD player, so I think the price of the players is a little overblown by people who didn't start buying DVD players until they were under $100.
By this time next year I expect players to be under $100.
I also don't think the movies themselves are that expensive.
I never pay more than $20 for a movie I purchase.
Sure it might retail for $39, but Amazon and other places discount the heavily.
If you wait for sales and also look for used copies the movies aren't bad at all.
Plus it costs me more than $20 to take my wife to a theater, so the purchase price of the movies actually seems like a good deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As somebody who crossed to the other side- I can agree.
<br> <br>I got a nice 50" plasma and decided it was time to upgrade to blu-ray to make sure I'm geting the most out of my set. So I went out and bought myself a nice Sony Blu-ray player and set out for an adventure. At first I was a little dissapointed, I needed a flash drive to get BD-LIVE to work, but none the less I was determined to get everything out of my $300 that I just plopped down. I plugged in my USB drive and started up BD-Live, only to find out it's literally just trailers for other movies. Why is this a feature? There are other "BD-Live" apps, which if I recall correctly, are written in Java. I always thought the idea of Java really opened up the doors for the platform, but it turns out nobody cares, nobody's trying for anything revolutionary. There's a program to Re-Edit a movie with your own notes and captions, and there's this trailer app. And you need the disc in to use them. <br> <br>To keep this short, I'll say this, the BD-Live features seemed like something the studios should be paying me for. I really don't understand why a new venue for advertising to me is a feature I should be excited about.<br> <br>Anyway, the picture quality itself was good, but rewind, fast foward and similar features responded so slowly, that they were useless. It felt like the remote just wasn't connecting- but if you pressed the button once and waited five minutes, it would eventually pause/rewind/fast foward.<br> <br>I decided I didn't like it, and returned it for a samsung with netflix and pandora- oh what a mistake that was. The features were minimal. No animated menus, clunky browsing, impossibly slow, same issues as the last- but this one had tracking off on both digital and analog audio signals. I can't make my audio receiver make the audio faster- only delay. The TV, unfortunately, don't have any such feature for the delay. How annoying. <br> <br>TLDR; Blu-Ray has been aroung long enough that it should be a stable technology. They're selling shit for big prices trying to convince people it's better, but it's worse than DVD (and dvds and players are cheap). There's no reason to upgrade. Even if the picture is nicer, I don't care. <br> <br>P.S. I'm returning my last Blu-Ray and not buying a new one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As somebody who crossed to the other side- I can agree .
I got a nice 50 " plasma and decided it was time to upgrade to blu-ray to make sure I 'm geting the most out of my set .
So I went out and bought myself a nice Sony Blu-ray player and set out for an adventure .
At first I was a little dissapointed , I needed a flash drive to get BD-LIVE to work , but none the less I was determined to get everything out of my $ 300 that I just plopped down .
I plugged in my USB drive and started up BD-Live , only to find out it 's literally just trailers for other movies .
Why is this a feature ?
There are other " BD-Live " apps , which if I recall correctly , are written in Java .
I always thought the idea of Java really opened up the doors for the platform , but it turns out nobody cares , nobody 's trying for anything revolutionary .
There 's a program to Re-Edit a movie with your own notes and captions , and there 's this trailer app .
And you need the disc in to use them .
To keep this short , I 'll say this , the BD-Live features seemed like something the studios should be paying me for .
I really do n't understand why a new venue for advertising to me is a feature I should be excited about .
Anyway , the picture quality itself was good , but rewind , fast foward and similar features responded so slowly , that they were useless .
It felt like the remote just was n't connecting- but if you pressed the button once and waited five minutes , it would eventually pause/rewind/fast foward .
I decided I did n't like it , and returned it for a samsung with netflix and pandora- oh what a mistake that was .
The features were minimal .
No animated menus , clunky browsing , impossibly slow , same issues as the last- but this one had tracking off on both digital and analog audio signals .
I ca n't make my audio receiver make the audio faster- only delay .
The TV , unfortunately , do n't have any such feature for the delay .
How annoying .
TLDR ; Blu-Ray has been aroung long enough that it should be a stable technology .
They 're selling shit for big prices trying to convince people it 's better , but it 's worse than DVD ( and dvds and players are cheap ) .
There 's no reason to upgrade .
Even if the picture is nicer , I do n't care .
P.S. I 'm returning my last Blu-Ray and not buying a new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As somebody who crossed to the other side- I can agree.
I got a nice 50" plasma and decided it was time to upgrade to blu-ray to make sure I'm geting the most out of my set.
So I went out and bought myself a nice Sony Blu-ray player and set out for an adventure.
At first I was a little dissapointed, I needed a flash drive to get BD-LIVE to work, but none the less I was determined to get everything out of my $300 that I just plopped down.
I plugged in my USB drive and started up BD-Live, only to find out it's literally just trailers for other movies.
Why is this a feature?
There are other "BD-Live" apps, which if I recall correctly, are written in Java.
I always thought the idea of Java really opened up the doors for the platform, but it turns out nobody cares, nobody's trying for anything revolutionary.
There's a program to Re-Edit a movie with your own notes and captions, and there's this trailer app.
And you need the disc in to use them.
To keep this short, I'll say this, the BD-Live features seemed like something the studios should be paying me for.
I really don't understand why a new venue for advertising to me is a feature I should be excited about.
Anyway, the picture quality itself was good, but rewind, fast foward and similar features responded so slowly, that they were useless.
It felt like the remote just wasn't connecting- but if you pressed the button once and waited five minutes, it would eventually pause/rewind/fast foward.
I decided I didn't like it, and returned it for a samsung with netflix and pandora- oh what a mistake that was.
The features were minimal.
No animated menus, clunky browsing, impossibly slow, same issues as the last- but this one had tracking off on both digital and analog audio signals.
I can't make my audio receiver make the audio faster- only delay.
The TV, unfortunately, don't have any such feature for the delay.
How annoying.
TLDR; Blu-Ray has been aroung long enough that it should be a stable technology.
They're selling shit for big prices trying to convince people it's better, but it's worse than DVD (and dvds and players are cheap).
There's no reason to upgrade.
Even if the picture is nicer, I don't care.
P.S. I'm returning my last Blu-Ray and not buying a new one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308417</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1244822400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This forced upgrade to a technology with a terrible, inherent flaw (tearing and lagging from any significant motion, even with the best, most current technology) is unacceptable.  When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology, I'll be on board but until then, to hell with this cheaply done forced upgrade crap to appease people who like shiny new things.</p></div><p>The issue isn't the tv technology, it's your nearby broadcasting station. I actually saw the exact opposite. I never could get a few channels (huge name ones at that, like ABC) in chicago on SD. Once we got our HDTV we got perfect crystal clear HD signal in 1080 on just an old shitty pair of bunny ears from the SDtv, including channels I never could get before, as well as ones I didn't even know existed. And that was in a basement apt. Once the stations go full power on the digital channels the tearing issue you complain about won't be an issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This forced upgrade to a technology with a terrible , inherent flaw ( tearing and lagging from any significant motion , even with the best , most current technology ) is unacceptable .
When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology , I 'll be on board but until then , to hell with this cheaply done forced upgrade crap to appease people who like shiny new things.The issue is n't the tv technology , it 's your nearby broadcasting station .
I actually saw the exact opposite .
I never could get a few channels ( huge name ones at that , like ABC ) in chicago on SD .
Once we got our HDTV we got perfect crystal clear HD signal in 1080 on just an old shitty pair of bunny ears from the SDtv , including channels I never could get before , as well as ones I did n't even know existed .
And that was in a basement apt .
Once the stations go full power on the digital channels the tearing issue you complain about wo n't be an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This forced upgrade to a technology with a terrible, inherent flaw (tearing and lagging from any significant motion, even with the best, most current technology) is unacceptable.
When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology, I'll be on board but until then, to hell with this cheaply done forced upgrade crap to appease people who like shiny new things.The issue isn't the tv technology, it's your nearby broadcasting station.
I actually saw the exact opposite.
I never could get a few channels (huge name ones at that, like ABC) in chicago on SD.
Once we got our HDTV we got perfect crystal clear HD signal in 1080 on just an old shitty pair of bunny ears from the SDtv, including channels I never could get before, as well as ones I didn't even know existed.
And that was in a basement apt.
Once the stations go full power on the digital channels the tearing issue you complain about won't be an issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28319767</id>
	<title>What about the wetware hole?</title>
	<author>jellybear</author>
	<datestamp>1244907600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, finally. But when do they plug the wetware hole? I had a conversation with a friend who told me about a movie he had seen. I ended up knowing about the plot and some scenes in the movie. How can we prevent this, plz? Can you please make it so after a person watches and enjoys a movie, you erase their memory so they can't just go around remembering it whenever they like? That'd be kewl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , finally .
But when do they plug the wetware hole ?
I had a conversation with a friend who told me about a movie he had seen .
I ended up knowing about the plot and some scenes in the movie .
How can we prevent this , plz ?
Can you please make it so after a person watches and enjoys a movie , you erase their memory so they ca n't just go around remembering it whenever they like ?
That 'd be kewl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, finally.
But when do they plug the wetware hole?
I had a conversation with a friend who told me about a movie he had seen.
I ended up knowing about the plot and some scenes in the movie.
How can we prevent this, plz?
Can you please make it so after a person watches and enjoys a movie, you erase their memory so they can't just go around remembering it whenever they like?
That'd be kewl.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28316013</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244813400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except if they ever do, that very same revocation certificate's parameters can be used for <i>generating</i> arbitary valid HDCP device keys. Or you could buy less than 100 HDCP-supporting devices with appropriate device keys and break the whole system by generating arbitary valid HDCP device keys that way.</p><p>HDCP's been cracked for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except if they ever do , that very same revocation certificate 's parameters can be used for generating arbitary valid HDCP device keys .
Or you could buy less than 100 HDCP-supporting devices with appropriate device keys and break the whole system by generating arbitary valid HDCP device keys that way.HDCP 's been cracked for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except if they ever do, that very same revocation certificate's parameters can be used for generating arbitary valid HDCP device keys.
Or you could buy less than 100 HDCP-supporting devices with appropriate device keys and break the whole system by generating arbitary valid HDCP device keys that way.HDCP's been cracked for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311043</id>
	<title>Re:opting out</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1244832720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why buy a movie on BluRay that you can buy on DVD cheaper with your current setup<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and will be available free on your TV in a years time in HD?</p><p>If you want to see it now, go tot the Cinema and watch it on a screen bigger than you could ever hope to buy and it will cost you less</p><p>If a movie is good enough to watch again and again it was not for the effects?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why buy a movie on BluRay that you can buy on DVD cheaper with your current setup .... ...and will be available free on your TV in a years time in HD ? If you want to see it now , go tot the Cinema and watch it on a screen bigger than you could ever hope to buy and it will cost you lessIf a movie is good enough to watch again and again it was not for the effects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why buy a movie on BluRay that you can buy on DVD cheaper with your current setup .... ...and will be available free on your TV in a years time in HD?If you want to see it now, go tot the Cinema and watch it on a screen bigger than you could ever hope to buy and it will cost you lessIf a movie is good enough to watch again and again it was not for the effects?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310209</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>Xelios</author>
	<datestamp>1244829420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's <a href="http://apache.dataloss.nl/~fred/www.nunce.org/hdcp/hdcp111901.htm" title="dataloss.nl">already been done</a> [dataloss.nl] as far back as 2001. The gist of it is this:<br> <br>

Each device has its own secret key, which is 40 numbers long, that the device isn't supposed to reveal to any other device. In addition each device gets an addition rule, which basically says "Add the numbers at positions x and y of your private key together and give me the result". This addition rule is public, all you need to do to acquire it is try to start a HDCP handshake with the device in question. So device A wants to complete a handshake with device B, both B and A send each other their addition rules, carry out the addition on the specified numbers and send each other the result. Through some mathematical voodoo (thanks to the ultra secret "Master key") the result will always match if both devices are legitimate. <br> <br>

As it turns out it's pretty easy to guess a device's secret key by using at least 40 other devices. All you need is the addition rule of the device to be broken, which is publicly available. You then apply the addition rule to each of the 40 other devices and store every result. When you're done you're left with 40 algebraic equations, like x1 + x4 = 23, x7+x12 = 65 etc. From here you can use some algebraic voodoo to reconstruct the target's private key, which you then spoof to authenticate any HDCP session to any device (until that key is revoked). <br> <br>

But it's worse than that. Turns out it's also possible to figure out the master key (a 40x40 matrix of 56 bit numbers) used to create all the private keys once you uncover at least 40 private keys. It's not easy, but it can be done, and since the whole system relies on the secrecy of this matrix once it's released to the public HDCP will be useless.

This break was <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/16/1343237" title="slashdot.org">discussed here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</a> [slashdot.org] 3 years ago, and it's just one of several methods that can break HDCP. As far as I know this particular vulnerability still exists, though I haven't been keeping up with developments lately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already been done [ dataloss.nl ] as far back as 2001 .
The gist of it is this : Each device has its own secret key , which is 40 numbers long , that the device is n't supposed to reveal to any other device .
In addition each device gets an addition rule , which basically says " Add the numbers at positions x and y of your private key together and give me the result " .
This addition rule is public , all you need to do to acquire it is try to start a HDCP handshake with the device in question .
So device A wants to complete a handshake with device B , both B and A send each other their addition rules , carry out the addition on the specified numbers and send each other the result .
Through some mathematical voodoo ( thanks to the ultra secret " Master key " ) the result will always match if both devices are legitimate .
As it turns out it 's pretty easy to guess a device 's secret key by using at least 40 other devices .
All you need is the addition rule of the device to be broken , which is publicly available .
You then apply the addition rule to each of the 40 other devices and store every result .
When you 're done you 're left with 40 algebraic equations , like x1 + x4 = 23 , x7 + x12 = 65 etc .
From here you can use some algebraic voodoo to reconstruct the target 's private key , which you then spoof to authenticate any HDCP session to any device ( until that key is revoked ) .
But it 's worse than that .
Turns out it 's also possible to figure out the master key ( a 40x40 matrix of 56 bit numbers ) used to create all the private keys once you uncover at least 40 private keys .
It 's not easy , but it can be done , and since the whole system relies on the secrecy of this matrix once it 's released to the public HDCP will be useless .
This break was discussed here on / .
[ slashdot.org ] 3 years ago , and it 's just one of several methods that can break HDCP .
As far as I know this particular vulnerability still exists , though I have n't been keeping up with developments lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already been done [dataloss.nl] as far back as 2001.
The gist of it is this: 

Each device has its own secret key, which is 40 numbers long, that the device isn't supposed to reveal to any other device.
In addition each device gets an addition rule, which basically says "Add the numbers at positions x and y of your private key together and give me the result".
This addition rule is public, all you need to do to acquire it is try to start a HDCP handshake with the device in question.
So device A wants to complete a handshake with device B, both B and A send each other their addition rules, carry out the addition on the specified numbers and send each other the result.
Through some mathematical voodoo (thanks to the ultra secret "Master key") the result will always match if both devices are legitimate.
As it turns out it's pretty easy to guess a device's secret key by using at least 40 other devices.
All you need is the addition rule of the device to be broken, which is publicly available.
You then apply the addition rule to each of the 40 other devices and store every result.
When you're done you're left with 40 algebraic equations, like x1 + x4 = 23, x7+x12 = 65 etc.
From here you can use some algebraic voodoo to reconstruct the target's private key, which you then spoof to authenticate any HDCP session to any device (until that key is revoked).
But it's worse than that.
Turns out it's also possible to figure out the master key (a 40x40 matrix of 56 bit numbers) used to create all the private keys once you uncover at least 40 private keys.
It's not easy, but it can be done, and since the whole system relies on the secrecy of this matrix once it's released to the public HDCP will be useless.
This break was discussed here on /.
[slashdot.org] 3 years ago, and it's just one of several methods that can break HDCP.
As far as I know this particular vulnerability still exists, though I haven't been keeping up with developments lately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229</id>
	<title>opting out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't own a Blu Ray player. I briefly owned an HDTV but went back to the old analog TV. Sorry, but I'm opting out. The digital entertainment revolution today isn't selling anything that I'm buying. If that means I miss out on things, so be it.

</p><p>When it was easy to back up a DVD, I legitimately purchased over 600 movies. As the copy protections became increasingly difficult to work around, I simply stopped buying. Hollywood stopped getting my money. I took all that money that I was spending on DVD's and bought a motorcycle instead. Now instead of sitting on the couch wasting 90-120 minutes of my life at a time, I'm spending that time enjoying getting around (rain or shine) like never before.

</p><p>It's been a year since I ditched the HDTV and maybe 2 years since I stopped buying DVD's. I don't miss it.

</p><p> <b>Don't like the terms they are giving you? OPT OUT!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't own a Blu Ray player .
I briefly owned an HDTV but went back to the old analog TV .
Sorry , but I 'm opting out .
The digital entertainment revolution today is n't selling anything that I 'm buying .
If that means I miss out on things , so be it .
When it was easy to back up a DVD , I legitimately purchased over 600 movies .
As the copy protections became increasingly difficult to work around , I simply stopped buying .
Hollywood stopped getting my money .
I took all that money that I was spending on DVD 's and bought a motorcycle instead .
Now instead of sitting on the couch wasting 90-120 minutes of my life at a time , I 'm spending that time enjoying getting around ( rain or shine ) like never before .
It 's been a year since I ditched the HDTV and maybe 2 years since I stopped buying DVD 's .
I do n't miss it .
Do n't like the terms they are giving you ?
OPT OUT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't own a Blu Ray player.
I briefly owned an HDTV but went back to the old analog TV.
Sorry, but I'm opting out.
The digital entertainment revolution today isn't selling anything that I'm buying.
If that means I miss out on things, so be it.
When it was easy to back up a DVD, I legitimately purchased over 600 movies.
As the copy protections became increasingly difficult to work around, I simply stopped buying.
Hollywood stopped getting my money.
I took all that money that I was spending on DVD's and bought a motorcycle instead.
Now instead of sitting on the couch wasting 90-120 minutes of my life at a time, I'm spending that time enjoying getting around (rain or shine) like never before.
It's been a year since I ditched the HDTV and maybe 2 years since I stopped buying DVD's.
I don't miss it.
Don't like the terms they are giving you?
OPT OUT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309709</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>cjsm</author>
	<datestamp>1244827620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, HD DVD was actually better implemented then Blu-Ray.  Blu-Ray had more storage capacity, but the HD DVD menus and interface were better designed and had more features, at least up until last year at the point in time when HD DVD expired.  But Blu-Ray will keep on improving as time goes on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , HD DVD was actually better implemented then Blu-Ray .
Blu-Ray had more storage capacity , but the HD DVD menus and interface were better designed and had more features , at least up until last year at the point in time when HD DVD expired .
But Blu-Ray will keep on improving as time goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, HD DVD was actually better implemented then Blu-Ray.
Blu-Ray had more storage capacity, but the HD DVD menus and interface were better designed and had more features, at least up until last year at the point in time when HD DVD expired.
But Blu-Ray will keep on improving as time goes on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311473</id>
	<title>Re:Just delayed the analog hole.</title>
	<author>Xarin</author>
	<datestamp>1244834340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even with modern electronic equipment. I don't see why you cant just Tap the signal after it has been decoded and before it goes to the display. Sure it is a hardware hack but like all DRM technology it just needs to be broken once for it to be useless and spread on the Internet.</p></div><p>The problem is that the signal being carried over an HDMI connector can be encrypted using the display devices public key.  If a brand of device is compromised then the key can be blacklisted for all future disks when they are produced.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with modern electronic equipment .
I do n't see why you cant just Tap the signal after it has been decoded and before it goes to the display .
Sure it is a hardware hack but like all DRM technology it just needs to be broken once for it to be useless and spread on the Internet.The problem is that the signal being carried over an HDMI connector can be encrypted using the display devices public key .
If a brand of device is compromised then the key can be blacklisted for all future disks when they are produced.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with modern electronic equipment.
I don't see why you cant just Tap the signal after it has been decoded and before it goes to the display.
Sure it is a hardware hack but like all DRM technology it just needs to be broken once for it to be useless and spread on the Internet.The problem is that the signal being carried over an HDMI connector can be encrypted using the display devices public key.
If a brand of device is compromised then the key can be blacklisted for all future disks when they are produced.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308159</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1244821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If any of their lawyers are listening, I have a very novel way of plugging their "analog" holes. Contact me for details and to set up a consultation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If any of their lawyers are listening , I have a very novel way of plugging their " analog " holes .
Contact me for details and to set up a consultation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If any of their lawyers are listening, I have a very novel way of plugging their "analog" holes.
Contact me for details and to set up a consultation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309161</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Sinbios</author>
	<datestamp>1244825640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Also, they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.</p><p>I can see why you think DVD is "good enough".</p><p>Personally, I can't stand blurry SD video anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Also , they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold , dead hands.I can see why you think DVD is " good enough " .Personally , I ca n't stand blurry SD video anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Also, they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.I can see why you think DVD is "good enough".Personally, I can't stand blurry SD video anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311873</id>
	<title>Re:will blu ray succeed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubted that too, until I walked into the movie store today and saw that there was an entire wall of blu-ray releases of every genre, and many popular TV shows.  It's definitely picking up steam in the same way that DVDs have, and there's enough selection to get you everything new you want, and most classics.  The library has really fleshed out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubted that too , until I walked into the movie store today and saw that there was an entire wall of blu-ray releases of every genre , and many popular TV shows .
It 's definitely picking up steam in the same way that DVDs have , and there 's enough selection to get you everything new you want , and most classics .
The library has really fleshed out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubted that too, until I walked into the movie store today and saw that there was an entire wall of blu-ray releases of every genre, and many popular TV shows.
It's definitely picking up steam in the same way that DVDs have, and there's enough selection to get you everything new you want, and most classics.
The library has really fleshed out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312685</id>
	<title>The real question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244838720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much broken technology can the corrupt content industry sell sheep consumers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much broken technology can the corrupt content industry sell sheep consumers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much broken technology can the corrupt content industry sell sheep consumers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312583</id>
	<title>Re:"Good enough"...to pirate.</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1244838300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt you could fit an IMAX feature onto a 1Tb hard drive. People argue over whether 2k is enough resolution for 35mm (I think it's close), and the only digital projectors out there are 2k, maybe extremely expensive 4k that aren't worth it because they have the resolution on paper but not a flawless implementation...like the 10mp digicam syndrome all over again. Remember, an IMAX frame is EIGHT TIMES bigger than a 35mm frame, and it's projected onto a bigger screen that is closer. I don't even know if the technology exists to duplicate IMAX digitally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt you could fit an IMAX feature onto a 1Tb hard drive .
People argue over whether 2k is enough resolution for 35mm ( I think it 's close ) , and the only digital projectors out there are 2k , maybe extremely expensive 4k that are n't worth it because they have the resolution on paper but not a flawless implementation...like the 10mp digicam syndrome all over again .
Remember , an IMAX frame is EIGHT TIMES bigger than a 35mm frame , and it 's projected onto a bigger screen that is closer .
I do n't even know if the technology exists to duplicate IMAX digitally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt you could fit an IMAX feature onto a 1Tb hard drive.
People argue over whether 2k is enough resolution for 35mm (I think it's close), and the only digital projectors out there are 2k, maybe extremely expensive 4k that aren't worth it because they have the resolution on paper but not a flawless implementation...like the 10mp digicam syndrome all over again.
Remember, an IMAX frame is EIGHT TIMES bigger than a 35mm frame, and it's projected onto a bigger screen that is closer.
I don't even know if the technology exists to duplicate IMAX digitally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310237</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tearing and lagging? Time to visit a TV store sometime this decade. Blu-Ray on a high end Sony Bravia looks awesome. I won't watch DVDs anymore - you might as well rub dirt in my eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tearing and lagging ?
Time to visit a TV store sometime this decade .
Blu-Ray on a high end Sony Bravia looks awesome .
I wo n't watch DVDs anymore - you might as well rub dirt in my eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tearing and lagging?
Time to visit a TV store sometime this decade.
Blu-Ray on a high end Sony Bravia looks awesome.
I won't watch DVDs anymore - you might as well rub dirt in my eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310413</id>
	<title>Re:will blu ray succeed?</title>
	<author>mordred99</author>
	<datestamp>1244830260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you are missing the point for the DVD/VHS transition.  DVD replaced VHS because it was pretty simple as well.  Yes there are menus and features, but still before DVD, VHS cost $20 a tape.  Then all of a sudden you had new $500 players and $30 dollar disks for DVDs.  Does any of this sound familiar.  Then all of a sudden, VHS went for cheap.  Players dropped in price, so did the media and the DVD media/player went to the former VHS price point.  Do you think 2 years ago I could walk into best buy, and get a movie on DVD for $7.50 (not on a holiday sale or what not) that was a $300 million seller in the US not 5 months after its DVD release?  Nope<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. sorry.  <br> <br>
What you see now is a new method of deployment of the same thing.  Yes it looks better, but it is the same thing.  If DVDs stripped off the other soundtracks, alternate crap, etc. they could fit almost 720p on a disk.  However most TVs could not handle that at the time, and also they needed something like DVI or HDMI or composite interfaces.  <br> <br>
My point is this.  We are seeing the same process again as we saw almost 12 years ago (1997) with Blu-Ray.  Also I am sorry but your techno talk about copying DVDs and VHS, etc. does not hold water for anything that I can see.  90\% or more of the population don't backup their DVDs.  If Johnny scratches the hell out of it or Suzie uses it for a coaster in her tea set, then guess what, they buy a new one.  I don't know of a single person in my family that backs up their DVDs.  Let's see, 8 M.S. degrees in engineering and science, almost everyone has a B.S. and not a single one wants to spend the time to back up their DVDs.  Once it is gone, they get a new one.  <br> <br>
Can I do what you are saying?  Yes.  Would I love Blu-Ray?  Yes. But my TV won't play it (DVI ports, no HDMI port, but has 1080P, and no ATSC tuner).  Thus HDCP is the hamstring for me.  Do I want to replace my 52" TV with a new one?  Nope.  No reason.  It works.  The other reason is it is EXPENSIVE to go to Blu-Ray.  Once Blu-Ray comes to 10-15 dollar a disk and around 100 bucks a drive, then you will see mass adoption.  Until then.  It is a Christmas present to the technonerd in the family, and not going to replace the DVD embedded TVs, etc. already out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are missing the point for the DVD/VHS transition .
DVD replaced VHS because it was pretty simple as well .
Yes there are menus and features , but still before DVD , VHS cost $ 20 a tape .
Then all of a sudden you had new $ 500 players and $ 30 dollar disks for DVDs .
Does any of this sound familiar .
Then all of a sudden , VHS went for cheap .
Players dropped in price , so did the media and the DVD media/player went to the former VHS price point .
Do you think 2 years ago I could walk into best buy , and get a movie on DVD for $ 7.50 ( not on a holiday sale or what not ) that was a $ 300 million seller in the US not 5 months after its DVD release ?
Nope .. sorry . What you see now is a new method of deployment of the same thing .
Yes it looks better , but it is the same thing .
If DVDs stripped off the other soundtracks , alternate crap , etc .
they could fit almost 720p on a disk .
However most TVs could not handle that at the time , and also they needed something like DVI or HDMI or composite interfaces .
My point is this .
We are seeing the same process again as we saw almost 12 years ago ( 1997 ) with Blu-Ray .
Also I am sorry but your techno talk about copying DVDs and VHS , etc .
does not hold water for anything that I can see .
90 \ % or more of the population do n't backup their DVDs .
If Johnny scratches the hell out of it or Suzie uses it for a coaster in her tea set , then guess what , they buy a new one .
I do n't know of a single person in my family that backs up their DVDs .
Let 's see , 8 M.S .
degrees in engineering and science , almost everyone has a B.S .
and not a single one wants to spend the time to back up their DVDs .
Once it is gone , they get a new one .
Can I do what you are saying ?
Yes. Would I love Blu-Ray ?
Yes. But my TV wo n't play it ( DVI ports , no HDMI port , but has 1080P , and no ATSC tuner ) .
Thus HDCP is the hamstring for me .
Do I want to replace my 52 " TV with a new one ?
Nope. No reason .
It works .
The other reason is it is EXPENSIVE to go to Blu-Ray .
Once Blu-Ray comes to 10-15 dollar a disk and around 100 bucks a drive , then you will see mass adoption .
Until then .
It is a Christmas present to the technonerd in the family , and not going to replace the DVD embedded TVs , etc .
already out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are missing the point for the DVD/VHS transition.
DVD replaced VHS because it was pretty simple as well.
Yes there are menus and features, but still before DVD, VHS cost $20 a tape.
Then all of a sudden you had new $500 players and $30 dollar disks for DVDs.
Does any of this sound familiar.
Then all of a sudden, VHS went for cheap.
Players dropped in price, so did the media and the DVD media/player went to the former VHS price point.
Do you think 2 years ago I could walk into best buy, and get a movie on DVD for $7.50 (not on a holiday sale or what not) that was a $300 million seller in the US not 5 months after its DVD release?
Nope .. sorry.   
What you see now is a new method of deployment of the same thing.
Yes it looks better, but it is the same thing.
If DVDs stripped off the other soundtracks, alternate crap, etc.
they could fit almost 720p on a disk.
However most TVs could not handle that at the time, and also they needed something like DVI or HDMI or composite interfaces.
My point is this.
We are seeing the same process again as we saw almost 12 years ago (1997) with Blu-Ray.
Also I am sorry but your techno talk about copying DVDs and VHS, etc.
does not hold water for anything that I can see.
90\% or more of the population don't backup their DVDs.
If Johnny scratches the hell out of it or Suzie uses it for a coaster in her tea set, then guess what, they buy a new one.
I don't know of a single person in my family that backs up their DVDs.
Let's see, 8 M.S.
degrees in engineering and science, almost everyone has a B.S.
and not a single one wants to spend the time to back up their DVDs.
Once it is gone, they get a new one.
Can I do what you are saying?
Yes.  Would I love Blu-Ray?
Yes. But my TV won't play it (DVI ports, no HDMI port, but has 1080P, and no ATSC tuner).
Thus HDCP is the hamstring for me.
Do I want to replace my 52" TV with a new one?
Nope.  No reason.
It works.
The other reason is it is EXPENSIVE to go to Blu-Ray.
Once Blu-Ray comes to 10-15 dollar a disk and around 100 bucks a drive, then you will see mass adoption.
Until then.
It is a Christmas present to the technonerd in the family, and not going to replace the DVD embedded TVs, etc.
already out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28313915</id>
	<title>Re:Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fanboy much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fanboy much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fanboy much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310427</id>
	<title>Well On Its Way...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244830320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to point this out, but the "analog hole plug" campaign is well on its way - silently.</p><p>Has anyone else noticed that there is no analog output on DVD-ROM drives any longer? Look at any recent model LG drive: only SATA and power are the only two connectors. What does that say: digital extraction is better? I hardly think so.</p><p>As it turns out, drives will be able to make a "decision" for you whether you are entitled to a specific piece of content or not. It will require software to run on the drive or on the PC, but, it's well on its way. This software, of course, will only be available under Winblows, and will be closely tied to WMP. Got Linux? So sorry - your media won't play here.</p><p>Here is another one: less and less analog inputs on TVs, plus the latest generation of HDMI is going to have Ethernet capability built-in! I can only assume the worse: content keys will be downloaded directly to my TV or DVD player from a studio. I cannot wait for the retaliatory strikes: massive DDOS attacks against the keying servers causing millions of TV sets to be unusable!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to point this out , but the " analog hole plug " campaign is well on its way - silently.Has anyone else noticed that there is no analog output on DVD-ROM drives any longer ?
Look at any recent model LG drive : only SATA and power are the only two connectors .
What does that say : digital extraction is better ?
I hardly think so.As it turns out , drives will be able to make a " decision " for you whether you are entitled to a specific piece of content or not .
It will require software to run on the drive or on the PC , but , it 's well on its way .
This software , of course , will only be available under Winblows , and will be closely tied to WMP .
Got Linux ?
So sorry - your media wo n't play here.Here is another one : less and less analog inputs on TVs , plus the latest generation of HDMI is going to have Ethernet capability built-in !
I can only assume the worse : content keys will be downloaded directly to my TV or DVD player from a studio .
I can not wait for the retaliatory strikes : massive DDOS attacks against the keying servers causing millions of TV sets to be unusable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to point this out, but the "analog hole plug" campaign is well on its way - silently.Has anyone else noticed that there is no analog output on DVD-ROM drives any longer?
Look at any recent model LG drive: only SATA and power are the only two connectors.
What does that say: digital extraction is better?
I hardly think so.As it turns out, drives will be able to make a "decision" for you whether you are entitled to a specific piece of content or not.
It will require software to run on the drive or on the PC, but, it's well on its way.
This software, of course, will only be available under Winblows, and will be closely tied to WMP.
Got Linux?
So sorry - your media won't play here.Here is another one: less and less analog inputs on TVs, plus the latest generation of HDMI is going to have Ethernet capability built-in!
I can only assume the worse: content keys will be downloaded directly to my TV or DVD player from a studio.
I cannot wait for the retaliatory strikes: massive DDOS attacks against the keying servers causing millions of TV sets to be unusable!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308737</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about changing the device's key? Most hardware these days has a way to update the software running on the device. If that is possible then it should be possible to modify the key as well, and replace a revoked key with a known good key.</p><p>I don't know very much about Blu-Ray's protection mechanisms, so this may not be a viable option, but it seems like it would work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about changing the device 's key ?
Most hardware these days has a way to update the software running on the device .
If that is possible then it should be possible to modify the key as well , and replace a revoked key with a known good key.I do n't know very much about Blu-Ray 's protection mechanisms , so this may not be a viable option , but it seems like it would work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about changing the device's key?
Most hardware these days has a way to update the software running on the device.
If that is possible then it should be possible to modify the key as well, and replace a revoked key with a known good key.I don't know very much about Blu-Ray's protection mechanisms, so this may not be a viable option, but it seems like it would work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308283</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1244821860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that they can close the analogue hole is itself ludicrous. How do they intend to get the image to my eye balls, by beaning it directly into my brain?</p><p>Presumably they know that their efforts will be futile, and their goal is to make it harder for people. Problem is, it only takes one person to rip a disc and torrent it, and everyone can get it.</p><p>All they will do is put off people who would otherwise buy their products. I really wanted to play GTA IV but ended up giving it a miss because of the really nasty DRM. I will not buy any Blu Ray discs until you can get region free players and rip/back them up effortlessly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that they can close the analogue hole is itself ludicrous .
How do they intend to get the image to my eye balls , by beaning it directly into my brain ? Presumably they know that their efforts will be futile , and their goal is to make it harder for people .
Problem is , it only takes one person to rip a disc and torrent it , and everyone can get it.All they will do is put off people who would otherwise buy their products .
I really wanted to play GTA IV but ended up giving it a miss because of the really nasty DRM .
I will not buy any Blu Ray discs until you can get region free players and rip/back them up effortlessly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that they can close the analogue hole is itself ludicrous.
How do they intend to get the image to my eye balls, by beaning it directly into my brain?Presumably they know that their efforts will be futile, and their goal is to make it harder for people.
Problem is, it only takes one person to rip a disc and torrent it, and everyone can get it.All they will do is put off people who would otherwise buy their products.
I really wanted to play GTA IV but ended up giving it a miss because of the really nasty DRM.
I will not buy any Blu Ray discs until you can get region free players and rip/back them up effortlessly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308827</id>
	<title>Re:WHATTTT?</title>
	<author>EddydaSquige</author>
	<datestamp>1244824020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The MPAA makes no provisions anywhere for backups.  The 'point a camcorder at your tv' method is their recommended way to create fair use clips for educational purposes.  They don't intend it for the whole movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA makes no provisions anywhere for backups .
The 'point a camcorder at your tv ' method is their recommended way to create fair use clips for educational purposes .
They do n't intend it for the whole movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA makes no provisions anywhere for backups.
The 'point a camcorder at your tv' method is their recommended way to create fair use clips for educational purposes.
They don't intend it for the whole movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</id>
	<title>BluRay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that still around?  Everywhere I see that carries any BR disks, the inventory is next to nothing now.</p><p>When are these companies going to give up with BR?  The format just wasn't going to catch on since most people see plain DVD as "good enough".  And, in fact, it is, for the most part.  Sure, BR is "better" but when you're watching a movie, you're not going to be able to tell the difference unless you're watching closely, most of the time.</p><p>Also, they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.  This forced upgrade to a technology with a terrible, inherent flaw (tearing and lagging from any significant motion, even with the best, most current technology) is unacceptable.  When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology, I'll be on board but until then, to hell with this cheaply done forced upgrade crap to appease people who like shiny new things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that still around ?
Everywhere I see that carries any BR disks , the inventory is next to nothing now.When are these companies going to give up with BR ?
The format just was n't going to catch on since most people see plain DVD as " good enough " .
And , in fact , it is , for the most part .
Sure , BR is " better " but when you 're watching a movie , you 're not going to be able to tell the difference unless you 're watching closely , most of the time.Also , they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold , dead hands .
This forced upgrade to a technology with a terrible , inherent flaw ( tearing and lagging from any significant motion , even with the best , most current technology ) is unacceptable .
When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology , I 'll be on board but until then , to hell with this cheaply done forced upgrade crap to appease people who like shiny new things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that still around?
Everywhere I see that carries any BR disks, the inventory is next to nothing now.When are these companies going to give up with BR?
The format just wasn't going to catch on since most people see plain DVD as "good enough".
And, in fact, it is, for the most part.
Sure, BR is "better" but when you're watching a movie, you're not going to be able to tell the difference unless you're watching closely, most of the time.Also, they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
This forced upgrade to a technology with a terrible, inherent flaw (tearing and lagging from any significant motion, even with the best, most current technology) is unacceptable.
When they wise up and replace LCD/plasma with viable technology, I'll be on board but until then, to hell with this cheaply done forced upgrade crap to appease people who like shiny new things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311065</id>
	<title>Analog is the last frontier</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1244832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, losing analog wont stop the hard core, but it will stop most people, which is the real intent.  It will give them total control over content.  You want to watch that old documentary on the KKK? Welp, too bad as its now banned and nothing you have will be allowed to play it. and the very attempt will signal the authorities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , losing analog wont stop the hard core , but it will stop most people , which is the real intent .
It will give them total control over content .
You want to watch that old documentary on the KKK ?
Welp , too bad as its now banned and nothing you have will be allowed to play it .
and the very attempt will signal the authorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, losing analog wont stop the hard core, but it will stop most people, which is the real intent.
It will give them total control over content.
You want to watch that old documentary on the KKK?
Welp, too bad as its now banned and nothing you have will be allowed to play it.
and the very attempt will signal the authorities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308817</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1244823960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Blu-Ray has been aroung long enough that it should be a stable technology. They're selling shit for big prices trying to convince people it's better, but it's worse than DVD (and dvds and players are cheap). There's no reason to upgrade. Even if the picture is nicer, I don't care.  P.S. I'm returning my last Blu-Ray and not buying a new one.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Good plan.  You were lucky.  If AACS thinks that stopping an analogue hole is going to help anything at all they are seriously stupid, people are breaking copy protection on blu-rays all the time just to watch their discs: <br> <br>

I recently built a new computer and decided that while I was upgrading hardware I would buy a blu-ray drive and see the latest and greatest.  So I went to Target and first was completely shocked at the prices of new blu-ray.  That's okay, even since the winter holidays the blu-ray discs have been on sale fairly often (e.g. buy two get the third free) so that at least brings the price down to DVD levels.  I bought a few movies I thought would look good in Blu-ray like the newest version of Bladerunner and pop it into my drive and VLC won't run the blu-ray movies because of the DRM.  No problem, I boot windows and start up the powerdvd that came with the drive and low and behold, I get a helpful message that my widescreen monitor is not HDCP compliant so I can't watch the movie in high resolution.  So I head over to doom9 and download dumpHD, but no dice, my drive has had its firmware updated and that blocked the access key dumpHD was using. Okay, well, I thought, I'll get anyDVD and strip that copy protection right out.  So I do that and now the movie plays at full resolution, except that the powerDVD that came with my drive is a crippled copy and won't play surround sound, only stereo.  No problem, I go back to vlc which now helpfully plays the un-DRMed m2ts files and play the individual movie files (just not the virtual machine).  Only problem is now I have surround sound, except if the disc has DTS, the channels are mixed up so the center channel is the surround and the surround left is the center and the surround right has nothing.  What I'm left with is having to boot into windows to run AnyDVD, then run eac3to.exe to strip the DTS sound file to an AC3, then run tsmuxer to remux the sound and video files, and then watch that using VLC (not to mention the amount of hard drive space I need for these movies is huge).  <br> <br>All of this crap just to watch my legally purchased blu-ray movies on my legally purchased blu-ray player on my legally purchased computer.  What a load of horse shit, I hope Sony goes completely completely out of business and blu-ray goes extinct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu-Ray has been aroung long enough that it should be a stable technology .
They 're selling shit for big prices trying to convince people it 's better , but it 's worse than DVD ( and dvds and players are cheap ) .
There 's no reason to upgrade .
Even if the picture is nicer , I do n't care .
P.S. I 'm returning my last Blu-Ray and not buying a new one .
Good plan .
You were lucky .
If AACS thinks that stopping an analogue hole is going to help anything at all they are seriously stupid , people are breaking copy protection on blu-rays all the time just to watch their discs : I recently built a new computer and decided that while I was upgrading hardware I would buy a blu-ray drive and see the latest and greatest .
So I went to Target and first was completely shocked at the prices of new blu-ray .
That 's okay , even since the winter holidays the blu-ray discs have been on sale fairly often ( e.g .
buy two get the third free ) so that at least brings the price down to DVD levels .
I bought a few movies I thought would look good in Blu-ray like the newest version of Bladerunner and pop it into my drive and VLC wo n't run the blu-ray movies because of the DRM .
No problem , I boot windows and start up the powerdvd that came with the drive and low and behold , I get a helpful message that my widescreen monitor is not HDCP compliant so I ca n't watch the movie in high resolution .
So I head over to doom9 and download dumpHD , but no dice , my drive has had its firmware updated and that blocked the access key dumpHD was using .
Okay , well , I thought , I 'll get anyDVD and strip that copy protection right out .
So I do that and now the movie plays at full resolution , except that the powerDVD that came with my drive is a crippled copy and wo n't play surround sound , only stereo .
No problem , I go back to vlc which now helpfully plays the un-DRMed m2ts files and play the individual movie files ( just not the virtual machine ) .
Only problem is now I have surround sound , except if the disc has DTS , the channels are mixed up so the center channel is the surround and the surround left is the center and the surround right has nothing .
What I 'm left with is having to boot into windows to run AnyDVD , then run eac3to.exe to strip the DTS sound file to an AC3 , then run tsmuxer to remux the sound and video files , and then watch that using VLC ( not to mention the amount of hard drive space I need for these movies is huge ) .
All of this crap just to watch my legally purchased blu-ray movies on my legally purchased blu-ray player on my legally purchased computer .
What a load of horse shit , I hope Sony goes completely completely out of business and blu-ray goes extinct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu-Ray has been aroung long enough that it should be a stable technology.
They're selling shit for big prices trying to convince people it's better, but it's worse than DVD (and dvds and players are cheap).
There's no reason to upgrade.
Even if the picture is nicer, I don't care.
P.S. I'm returning my last Blu-Ray and not buying a new one.
Good plan.
You were lucky.
If AACS thinks that stopping an analogue hole is going to help anything at all they are seriously stupid, people are breaking copy protection on blu-rays all the time just to watch their discs:  

I recently built a new computer and decided that while I was upgrading hardware I would buy a blu-ray drive and see the latest and greatest.
So I went to Target and first was completely shocked at the prices of new blu-ray.
That's okay, even since the winter holidays the blu-ray discs have been on sale fairly often (e.g.
buy two get the third free) so that at least brings the price down to DVD levels.
I bought a few movies I thought would look good in Blu-ray like the newest version of Bladerunner and pop it into my drive and VLC won't run the blu-ray movies because of the DRM.
No problem, I boot windows and start up the powerdvd that came with the drive and low and behold, I get a helpful message that my widescreen monitor is not HDCP compliant so I can't watch the movie in high resolution.
So I head over to doom9 and download dumpHD, but no dice, my drive has had its firmware updated and that blocked the access key dumpHD was using.
Okay, well, I thought, I'll get anyDVD and strip that copy protection right out.
So I do that and now the movie plays at full resolution, except that the powerDVD that came with my drive is a crippled copy and won't play surround sound, only stereo.
No problem, I go back to vlc which now helpfully plays the un-DRMed m2ts files and play the individual movie files (just not the virtual machine).
Only problem is now I have surround sound, except if the disc has DTS, the channels are mixed up so the center channel is the surround and the surround left is the center and the surround right has nothing.
What I'm left with is having to boot into windows to run AnyDVD, then run eac3to.exe to strip the DTS sound file to an AC3, then run tsmuxer to remux the sound and video files, and then watch that using VLC (not to mention the amount of hard drive space I need for these movies is huge).
All of this crap just to watch my legally purchased blu-ray movies on my legally purchased blu-ray player on my legally purchased computer.
What a load of horse shit, I hope Sony goes completely completely out of business and blu-ray goes extinct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28314171</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>daemonburrito</author>
	<datestamp>1244801520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A note to people considering this route:</p><p>As far as I have seen, the media cartel pulled a fast one with upscaled DVD. While a good idea in theory, all the DVD players except for the boutique stuff requires using HDMI for HD resolutions (even though the component connection is capable of 720p/1080i), and will not work without an HDCP-compliant display.</p><p>There are players out there that will send the upscaled signal down DVI (unHDCP'd) and component, but everything I have seen at big box retailers just forces HDCP on people. Caveat emptor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A note to people considering this route : As far as I have seen , the media cartel pulled a fast one with upscaled DVD .
While a good idea in theory , all the DVD players except for the boutique stuff requires using HDMI for HD resolutions ( even though the component connection is capable of 720p/1080i ) , and will not work without an HDCP-compliant display.There are players out there that will send the upscaled signal down DVI ( unHDCP 'd ) and component , but everything I have seen at big box retailers just forces HDCP on people .
Caveat emptor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A note to people considering this route:As far as I have seen, the media cartel pulled a fast one with upscaled DVD.
While a good idea in theory, all the DVD players except for the boutique stuff requires using HDMI for HD resolutions (even though the component connection is capable of 720p/1080i), and will not work without an HDCP-compliant display.There are players out there that will send the upscaled signal down DVI (unHDCP'd) and component, but everything I have seen at big box retailers just forces HDCP on people.
Caveat emptor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309057</id>
	<title>Re:WHATTTT?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1244825100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole." WHAAAAAATTTTT? We're supposed to take this mean to do backups?</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, backups are not, generally, "fair use". For some copyright-protected material, archival backups <i>are</i> protected under other provisions of copyright law (ISTR there is, or was, a specific provision for this for computer software), but not all exceptions to the exclusive rights under copyright are "fair use" or generally applicable in the way "fair use" is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies , creating another analog hole .
" WHAAAAAATTTTT ?
We 're supposed to take this mean to do backups ?
No , backups are not , generally , " fair use " .
For some copyright-protected material , archival backups are protected under other provisions of copyright law ( ISTR there is , or was , a specific provision for this for computer software ) , but not all exceptions to the exclusive rights under copyright are " fair use " or generally applicable in the way " fair use " is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole.
" WHAAAAAATTTTT?
We're supposed to take this mean to do backups?
No, backups are not, generally, "fair use".
For some copyright-protected material, archival backups are protected under other provisions of copyright law (ISTR there is, or was, a specific provision for this for computer software), but not all exceptions to the exclusive rights under copyright are "fair use" or generally applicable in the way "fair use" is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308629</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard similar horror stories about other stand-alone BluRay players.</p><p>If you're interested in playing back BluRay content, get a Sony PlayStation 3. It's one of the very best players around, and since it has a full blown network enabled OS on it, it can get updates as easily as any other operating system.</p><p>I hate DRM, I love Linux, I've developed open source software. BluRay definitely has some problems. However, it is the single best quality format for consumer video playback to date. I have a Samsung 46" 1080p HDTV, and I can tell you that BluRay playback looks noticeably better than any DVD or satellite broadcast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard similar horror stories about other stand-alone BluRay players.If you 're interested in playing back BluRay content , get a Sony PlayStation 3 .
It 's one of the very best players around , and since it has a full blown network enabled OS on it , it can get updates as easily as any other operating system.I hate DRM , I love Linux , I 've developed open source software .
BluRay definitely has some problems .
However , it is the single best quality format for consumer video playback to date .
I have a Samsung 46 " 1080p HDTV , and I can tell you that BluRay playback looks noticeably better than any DVD or satellite broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard similar horror stories about other stand-alone BluRay players.If you're interested in playing back BluRay content, get a Sony PlayStation 3.
It's one of the very best players around, and since it has a full blown network enabled OS on it, it can get updates as easily as any other operating system.I hate DRM, I love Linux, I've developed open source software.
BluRay definitely has some problems.
However, it is the single best quality format for consumer video playback to date.
I have a Samsung 46" 1080p HDTV, and I can tell you that BluRay playback looks noticeably better than any DVD or satellite broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309495</id>
	<title>I have a PS3...</title>
	<author>emanem</author>
	<datestamp>1244826900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and the only Blue Ray I own is <i>The 300</i>.<br>
Honestly with that kind of movie the difference between DVD/BR is huge on my full-HDMI screen...<br>
But I don't think I will buy any BR in the near future...indeed, with mediatomb I can watch everything I want on my PS3, plus DVD can be very very cheap...<br>
Who cares about BR when I can see full HD MP4 on my PS3?<br>
Cheers,</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and the only Blue Ray I own is The 300 .
Honestly with that kind of movie the difference between DVD/BR is huge on my full-HDMI screen.. . But I do n't think I will buy any BR in the near future...indeed , with mediatomb I can watch everything I want on my PS3 , plus DVD can be very very cheap.. . Who cares about BR when I can see full HD MP4 on my PS3 ?
Cheers,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and the only Blue Ray I own is The 300.
Honestly with that kind of movie the difference between DVD/BR is huge on my full-HDMI screen...
But I don't think I will buy any BR in the near future...indeed, with mediatomb I can watch everything I want on my PS3, plus DVD can be very very cheap...
Who cares about BR when I can see full HD MP4 on my PS3?
Cheers,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307925</id>
	<title>Not true...</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1244820480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... This will only annoy people who *buy* their crap. Problem solved!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... This will only annoy people who * buy * their crap .
Problem solved !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... This will only annoy people who *buy* their crap.
Problem solved!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308641</id>
	<title>Re:Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>Weeksauce</author>
	<datestamp>1244823240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, why are you assuming that it has to be Apple of all companies to make digitial HD a reality? In case you haven't noticed, Netflix and Amazon have been offering very solid HD solutions on a plethora of players that hook directly to your tv. Apple TV has been nothing short of an epic failure! I'm assuming, due to your sig, that being a Mac fanboy has blinded you from any alternative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , why are you assuming that it has to be Apple of all companies to make digitial HD a reality ?
In case you have n't noticed , Netflix and Amazon have been offering very solid HD solutions on a plethora of players that hook directly to your tv .
Apple TV has been nothing short of an epic failure !
I 'm assuming , due to your sig , that being a Mac fanboy has blinded you from any alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, why are you assuming that it has to be Apple of all companies to make digitial HD a reality?
In case you haven't noticed, Netflix and Amazon have been offering very solid HD solutions on a plethora of players that hook directly to your tv.
Apple TV has been nothing short of an epic failure!
I'm assuming, due to your sig, that being a Mac fanboy has blinded you from any alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310039</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1244828760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not that they werent FILMED in HD, its that they werent transferred in HD. Go check out some of the old Law and Orders that run on TNT HD. They  have been remastered and formatted for HD from the original films. They look fantastic for how old the episodes are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not that they werent FILMED in HD , its that they werent transferred in HD .
Go check out some of the old Law and Orders that run on TNT HD .
They have been remastered and formatted for HD from the original films .
They look fantastic for how old the episodes are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not that they werent FILMED in HD, its that they werent transferred in HD.
Go check out some of the old Law and Orders that run on TNT HD.
They  have been remastered and formatted for HD from the original films.
They look fantastic for how old the episodes are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312945</id>
	<title>analog holes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The two analog holes I have in the front are needed for watching movies and can't be plugged. I'm thinkin maybe they're thinkin of plugging the one that's kept in the dark. Ain't gonna happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two analog holes I have in the front are needed for watching movies and ca n't be plugged .
I 'm thinkin maybe they 're thinkin of plugging the one that 's kept in the dark .
Ai n't gon na happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two analog holes I have in the front are needed for watching movies and can't be plugged.
I'm thinkin maybe they're thinkin of plugging the one that's kept in the dark.
Ain't gonna happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308447</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Mastadex</author>
	<datestamp>1244822460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BlueRay might catch on in the Game Console or PC markets because it can store a TON of data. As for TV, I'm happy with my DVDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BlueRay might catch on in the Game Console or PC markets because it can store a TON of data .
As for TV , I 'm happy with my DVDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BlueRay might catch on in the Game Console or PC markets because it can store a TON of data.
As for TV, I'm happy with my DVDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308655</id>
	<title>WHATTTT?</title>
	<author>werfu</author>
	<datestamp>1244823300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole."

WHAAAAAATTTTT? We're supposed to take this mean to do backups? Shit, aren't they just the same people who try to spread HD? Screens suck hard and they will always do. Fuck you MPAA. I'll continue to rip movies as long as I'll live or as long you won't let people what they want with the stuff they bougth.

(Feels better now)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies , creating another analog hole .
" WHAAAAAATTTTT ?
We 're supposed to take this mean to do backups ?
Shit , are n't they just the same people who try to spread HD ?
Screens suck hard and they will always do .
Fuck you MPAA .
I 'll continue to rip movies as long as I 'll live or as long you wo n't let people what they want with the stuff they bougth .
( Feels better now )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole.
"

WHAAAAAATTTTT?
We're supposed to take this mean to do backups?
Shit, aren't they just the same people who try to spread HD?
Screens suck hard and they will always do.
Fuck you MPAA.
I'll continue to rip movies as long as I'll live or as long you won't let people what they want with the stuff they bougth.
(Feels better now)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309303</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1244826180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is another reason to boycott drm that is part of bd.</p><p>the 'disable' list.</p><p>do you want your video card, tv (etc) marked as 'do not run' ?</p><p>its RISKY to even mount a BD disc, given that it has unknown malicious (truly, if you think about it) code.</p><p>"a virus with every movie.  for no extra charge."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is another reason to boycott drm that is part of bd.the 'disable ' list.do you want your video card , tv ( etc ) marked as 'do not run ' ? its RISKY to even mount a BD disc , given that it has unknown malicious ( truly , if you think about it ) code .
" a virus with every movie .
for no extra charge .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is another reason to boycott drm that is part of bd.the 'disable' list.do you want your video card, tv (etc) marked as 'do not run' ?its RISKY to even mount a BD disc, given that it has unknown malicious (truly, if you think about it) code.
"a virus with every movie.
for no extra charge.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308423</id>
	<title>Re:Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>Chaos Incarnate</author>
	<datestamp>1244822400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blu-ray has a 2-3 year head start on marketplace penetration, and Apple hasn't even managed to match the most basic of features (video resolution &amp; # of sound channels), much less matching video/sound quality or allowing any bonus features. Overtaking Blu-ray with downloads at this point will require divine intervention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu-ray has a 2-3 year head start on marketplace penetration , and Apple has n't even managed to match the most basic of features ( video resolution &amp; # of sound channels ) , much less matching video/sound quality or allowing any bonus features .
Overtaking Blu-ray with downloads at this point will require divine intervention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu-ray has a 2-3 year head start on marketplace penetration, and Apple hasn't even managed to match the most basic of features (video resolution &amp; # of sound channels), much less matching video/sound quality or allowing any bonus features.
Overtaking Blu-ray with downloads at this point will require divine intervention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308735</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>jambox</author>
	<datestamp>1244823600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was in a big store the other day standing in front of some expensive TVs (&pound;1000-&pound;500) and every single one had really, really bad tearing problems. As long as the camera doesn't pan, then everything is great - beautiful colours, greaty contrast, incredible detail... but as soon as even a moderately fast panning shot comes up... if what you saw were a noise it would be "KRKRRKRRRRRRKKRKRR". Not good. The bigger the TV the worse it was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was in a big store the other day standing in front of some expensive TVs (   1000-   500 ) and every single one had really , really bad tearing problems .
As long as the camera does n't pan , then everything is great - beautiful colours , greaty contrast , incredible detail... but as soon as even a moderately fast panning shot comes up... if what you saw were a noise it would be " KRKRRKRRRRRRKKRKRR " .
Not good .
The bigger the TV the worse it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was in a big store the other day standing in front of some expensive TVs (£1000-£500) and every single one had really, really bad tearing problems.
As long as the camera doesn't pan, then everything is great - beautiful colours, greaty contrast, incredible detail... but as soon as even a moderately fast panning shot comes up... if what you saw were a noise it would be "KRKRRKRRRRRRKKRKRR".
Not good.
The bigger the TV the worse it was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308281</id>
	<title>HDMI connections have many problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending on the set up HDMI causes a lot of problems because of how devices perceive each other and communicate. It also seems to fail a lot. For example, AT&amp;T installers actively avoid the connection on their DVR devices because when TVs go into power saving mode it shuts them down down. Some times when you are using multiple devices one of which is analog and turn on a HDMI device it switch to it whether you want to or not. It is also hard to switch between them because of the lag in renegotiating the connection.</p><p>Basically HDMI sucks at what it was supposed to do HDCP or not.</p><p>Robert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on the set up HDMI causes a lot of problems because of how devices perceive each other and communicate .
It also seems to fail a lot .
For example , AT&amp;T installers actively avoid the connection on their DVR devices because when TVs go into power saving mode it shuts them down down .
Some times when you are using multiple devices one of which is analog and turn on a HDMI device it switch to it whether you want to or not .
It is also hard to switch between them because of the lag in renegotiating the connection.Basically HDMI sucks at what it was supposed to do HDCP or not.Robert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on the set up HDMI causes a lot of problems because of how devices perceive each other and communicate.
It also seems to fail a lot.
For example, AT&amp;T installers actively avoid the connection on their DVR devices because when TVs go into power saving mode it shuts them down down.
Some times when you are using multiple devices one of which is analog and turn on a HDMI device it switch to it whether you want to or not.
It is also hard to switch between them because of the lag in renegotiating the connection.Basically HDMI sucks at what it was supposed to do HDCP or not.Robert</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307887</id>
	<title>DVD Jon is a brave man</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1244820360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I took a lot of guts to crack DVD encryption, but it takes even MORE guts to take on Apple. Those guys will sue someone who even looks at them funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I took a lot of guts to crack DVD encryption , but it takes even MORE guts to take on Apple .
Those guys will sue someone who even looks at them funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took a lot of guts to crack DVD encryption, but it takes even MORE guts to take on Apple.
Those guys will sue someone who even looks at them funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308771</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought bd-live was basically a huge gimmick, just dvd extras++.  I mean who really cares about dvd extras, that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0001\% of the population that cared about dvd extras are probably the same ones who hold out high hopes and love their bd-live.  It would be nice if they would not focus on the gimmicks and just fill up the disc with the best picture and sound quality they possibly can, think superbit dvds that did the same thing, doing away with extras in favor of quality.  TI think you hit the nail on the head, its just another way to market more crap and have the consumer believe they are actually paying to receive something worthwhile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought bd-live was basically a huge gimmick , just dvd extras + + .
I mean who really cares about dvd extras , that .0001 \ % of the population that cared about dvd extras are probably the same ones who hold out high hopes and love their bd-live .
It would be nice if they would not focus on the gimmicks and just fill up the disc with the best picture and sound quality they possibly can , think superbit dvds that did the same thing , doing away with extras in favor of quality .
TI think you hit the nail on the head , its just another way to market more crap and have the consumer believe they are actually paying to receive something worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought bd-live was basically a huge gimmick, just dvd extras++.
I mean who really cares about dvd extras, that .0001\% of the population that cared about dvd extras are probably the same ones who hold out high hopes and love their bd-live.
It would be nice if they would not focus on the gimmicks and just fill up the disc with the best picture and sound quality they possibly can, think superbit dvds that did the same thing, doing away with extras in favor of quality.
TI think you hit the nail on the head, its just another way to market more crap and have the consumer believe they are actually paying to receive something worthwhile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309429</id>
	<title>Re:will blu ray succeed?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1244826540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DVD will be the last physical format, in that, if you want to bring a movie to someone's house you don't know very well or to school, you'll probably opt for a DVD.</p><p>The reason DVD will hang on is simple - people don't care so much for image quality as convenience.  Consider the physical format.  CD, the first and last widespread digital physical music format, conquered tape because you didn't need to rewind to listen to a song again and again, could go to any track you want immediately as well, and other such simple things.  You could also hold 25 of them in a spindle much more than ever holding tape.  It also doesn't have tape hiss...  These benefits combine to draw enough early adopters and reach critical mass.</p><p>The DVD vs DVD had the exact benefits - rewinding, skipping around, size of format, and analog artifacts.  Same result.</p><p>There have been challengers to the music CD - minidisc, DVD-Audio, SACD.  There was/is a market for them, but it's not mainstream.  The benefits are fewer and usually relegated to one easily identifiable one for the average person - size (minidisc), quality (DVD-Audio), SACD, etc.</p><p>When there is only one benefit, the existing one has to be so bad at it or the new alternative so groundbreaking superior.  As the CD shows, there is just "good enough" for the average person they were a higher quality alternative as diminishing returns.  Even the iPod didn't offer better sound quality, just an overall package of convenience, not just in lugging around your music collection, but in buying the content as well.</p><p>We had superior things to DVD before in terms of image quality - like Laser Disc (but it had other downfalls).  So I don't think consumers care about that as much as other factors.  Right now HD is just too fractured and confusing to the average consumer that I doubt the industry will really get it together by the time downloads.</p><p>If blu-ray reaches true mainstream, it will probably only have the PS3 to thank.  There's enough of a market for walmart to cater to, but I just don't see DVD declining like VHS did anytime soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DVD will be the last physical format , in that , if you want to bring a movie to someone 's house you do n't know very well or to school , you 'll probably opt for a DVD.The reason DVD will hang on is simple - people do n't care so much for image quality as convenience .
Consider the physical format .
CD , the first and last widespread digital physical music format , conquered tape because you did n't need to rewind to listen to a song again and again , could go to any track you want immediately as well , and other such simple things .
You could also hold 25 of them in a spindle much more than ever holding tape .
It also does n't have tape hiss... These benefits combine to draw enough early adopters and reach critical mass.The DVD vs DVD had the exact benefits - rewinding , skipping around , size of format , and analog artifacts .
Same result.There have been challengers to the music CD - minidisc , DVD-Audio , SACD .
There was/is a market for them , but it 's not mainstream .
The benefits are fewer and usually relegated to one easily identifiable one for the average person - size ( minidisc ) , quality ( DVD-Audio ) , SACD , etc.When there is only one benefit , the existing one has to be so bad at it or the new alternative so groundbreaking superior .
As the CD shows , there is just " good enough " for the average person they were a higher quality alternative as diminishing returns .
Even the iPod did n't offer better sound quality , just an overall package of convenience , not just in lugging around your music collection , but in buying the content as well.We had superior things to DVD before in terms of image quality - like Laser Disc ( but it had other downfalls ) .
So I do n't think consumers care about that as much as other factors .
Right now HD is just too fractured and confusing to the average consumer that I doubt the industry will really get it together by the time downloads.If blu-ray reaches true mainstream , it will probably only have the PS3 to thank .
There 's enough of a market for walmart to cater to , but I just do n't see DVD declining like VHS did anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DVD will be the last physical format, in that, if you want to bring a movie to someone's house you don't know very well or to school, you'll probably opt for a DVD.The reason DVD will hang on is simple - people don't care so much for image quality as convenience.
Consider the physical format.
CD, the first and last widespread digital physical music format, conquered tape because you didn't need to rewind to listen to a song again and again, could go to any track you want immediately as well, and other such simple things.
You could also hold 25 of them in a spindle much more than ever holding tape.
It also doesn't have tape hiss...  These benefits combine to draw enough early adopters and reach critical mass.The DVD vs DVD had the exact benefits - rewinding, skipping around, size of format, and analog artifacts.
Same result.There have been challengers to the music CD - minidisc, DVD-Audio, SACD.
There was/is a market for them, but it's not mainstream.
The benefits are fewer and usually relegated to one easily identifiable one for the average person - size (minidisc), quality (DVD-Audio), SACD, etc.When there is only one benefit, the existing one has to be so bad at it or the new alternative so groundbreaking superior.
As the CD shows, there is just "good enough" for the average person they were a higher quality alternative as diminishing returns.
Even the iPod didn't offer better sound quality, just an overall package of convenience, not just in lugging around your music collection, but in buying the content as well.We had superior things to DVD before in terms of image quality - like Laser Disc (but it had other downfalls).
So I don't think consumers care about that as much as other factors.
Right now HD is just too fractured and confusing to the average consumer that I doubt the industry will really get it together by the time downloads.If blu-ray reaches true mainstream, it will probably only have the PS3 to thank.
There's enough of a market for walmart to cater to, but I just don't see DVD declining like VHS did anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308399</id>
	<title>Re:Ignore them?</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1244822340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that we will see the same thing with video that we did with music.</p><p>The normal consumer when presented with the choice between "quality" and "convenience"<br>will choose convenience. The ability to have the bulk of your DVD collection in the<br>palm of you hand where ever you go will probably be considered more desirable than<br>image quality on a large screen that you many not have or may not percieve or may<br>not care about.</p><p>Give a kid the complete Ben 10 in the palm of his hand and he<br>won't even realize that there is a much bigger TV in the room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that we will see the same thing with video that we did with music.The normal consumer when presented with the choice between " quality " and " convenience " will choose convenience .
The ability to have the bulk of your DVD collection in thepalm of you hand where ever you go will probably be considered more desirable thanimage quality on a large screen that you many not have or may not percieve or maynot care about.Give a kid the complete Ben 10 in the palm of his hand and hewo n't even realize that there is a much bigger TV in the room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that we will see the same thing with video that we did with music.The normal consumer when presented with the choice between "quality" and "convenience"will choose convenience.
The ability to have the bulk of your DVD collection in thepalm of you hand where ever you go will probably be considered more desirable thanimage quality on a large screen that you many not have or may not percieve or maynot care about.Give a kid the complete Ben 10 in the palm of his hand and hewon't even realize that there is a much bigger TV in the room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309219</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1244825880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most of the movies in my collection were never filmed in high definition, so the quality improvements in switching to Blu-ray would be minimal.</p></div><p>They were filmed in.... film, typically 35mm.  35mm is generally considered to be equivalent to 10-20MP depending on quality and age, with an upper limit somewhere around 25MP.  Even after being clipped, cropped, spliced, edited, and composited with multiple layers and digital effects, a proper remaster should still be able to achieve at least 1920x800 (~1.5MP).<br> <br>
The only reason your collection wouldn't be able to be brought up to spec is because its full of low budget B movies, or you have a bunch of old movies that have degraded or been lost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the movies in my collection were never filmed in high definition , so the quality improvements in switching to Blu-ray would be minimal.They were filmed in.... film , typically 35mm .
35mm is generally considered to be equivalent to 10-20MP depending on quality and age , with an upper limit somewhere around 25MP .
Even after being clipped , cropped , spliced , edited , and composited with multiple layers and digital effects , a proper remaster should still be able to achieve at least 1920x800 ( ~ 1.5MP ) .
The only reason your collection would n't be able to be brought up to spec is because its full of low budget B movies , or you have a bunch of old movies that have degraded or been lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the movies in my collection were never filmed in high definition, so the quality improvements in switching to Blu-ray would be minimal.They were filmed in.... film, typically 35mm.
35mm is generally considered to be equivalent to 10-20MP depending on quality and age, with an upper limit somewhere around 25MP.
Even after being clipped, cropped, spliced, edited, and composited with multiple layers and digital effects, a proper remaster should still be able to achieve at least 1920x800 (~1.5MP).
The only reason your collection wouldn't be able to be brought up to spec is because its full of low budget B movies, or you have a bunch of old movies that have degraded or been lost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308217</id>
	<title>Re:Not-so-awesome encryption</title>
	<author>greyblack</author>
	<datestamp>1244821500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think I will just buy a shitload of these and store them away until 2013 arrives and friends, friends' parents and friends of friends' parents starts calling for help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think I will just buy a shitload of these and store them away until 2013 arrives and friends , friends ' parents and friends of friends ' parents starts calling for help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think I will just buy a shitload of these and store them away until 2013 arrives and friends, friends' parents and friends of friends' parents starts calling for help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308919</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Shatrat</author>
	<datestamp>1244824500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be great.<br>  Then I could turn off any camcorder by displaying the watermark somehow.  Depending on how they implemented it, it could maybe be as easy as a printout of a particular frame of the movie.<br>Then I could just wander around disney land and crashing weddings ruining peoples home videos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be great .
Then I could turn off any camcorder by displaying the watermark somehow .
Depending on how they implemented it , it could maybe be as easy as a printout of a particular frame of the movie.Then I could just wander around disney land and crashing weddings ruining peoples home videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be great.
Then I could turn off any camcorder by displaying the watermark somehow.
Depending on how they implemented it, it could maybe be as easy as a printout of a particular frame of the movie.Then I could just wander around disney land and crashing weddings ruining peoples home videos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308955</id>
	<title>Re:opting out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244824680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You purchased over 600 movies?  How many of those movies do you actually watch on a regular basis?  What a waste of money.  Hoarder!  Be careful you don't start collecting cats next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You purchased over 600 movies ?
How many of those movies do you actually watch on a regular basis ?
What a waste of money .
Hoarder ! Be careful you do n't start collecting cats next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You purchased over 600 movies?
How many of those movies do you actually watch on a regular basis?
What a waste of money.
Hoarder!  Be careful you don't start collecting cats next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308189</id>
	<title>I'm gonna tell them to...</title>
	<author>SteveHeadroom</author>
	<datestamp>1244821380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kiss my analog hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kiss my analog hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kiss my analog hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308969</id>
	<title>"You can't stop the signal, Mal"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244824740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think these people will <em>never</em> get the clue. Whatever one man can DRM, another man can crack -- usually in a matter of days, if not hours. <b>Memo to DRM idiots:</b> Stop wasting your time and money in your self-defeating efforts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think these people will never get the clue .
Whatever one man can DRM , another man can crack -- usually in a matter of days , if not hours .
Memo to DRM idiots : Stop wasting your time and money in your self-defeating efforts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think these people will never get the clue.
Whatever one man can DRM, another man can crack -- usually in a matter of days, if not hours.
Memo to DRM idiots: Stop wasting your time and money in your self-defeating efforts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311371</id>
	<title>I just copy my DVDs</title>
	<author>EkriirkE</author>
	<datestamp>1244833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keeps the original pristine, removes locked-navigation on previews/warnings.  I can go straight to the menu when I pop it in, or even forgo the menu if there are no worthwhile extra features</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeps the original pristine , removes locked-navigation on previews/warnings .
I can go straight to the menu when I pop it in , or even forgo the menu if there are no worthwhile extra features</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeps the original pristine, removes locked-navigation on previews/warnings.
I can go straight to the menu when I pop it in, or even forgo the menu if there are no worthwhile extra features</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308921</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244824500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had a better experience. I bought a PS3, which is the best Blu-Ray player out there. It plays perfectly with none of the glitches you described, and if there are any future firmware updates needed, it will be the first to get them. I also play games, so I get a lot of value from it.</p><p>I don't buy movies anymore, since I realized how rarely I re-watch movies. I also don't get cable. I have a Netflix subscription with Blu-Ray, which provides me with all the movies I could want. I really prefer watching TV shows on disc, where I don't have to worry about commercials and scheduling.</p><p>I can watch anything in hi def, I'm paying a low amount per month, and if I want to switch to a different technology in the future, it won't be painful. It's hard to beat that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had a better experience .
I bought a PS3 , which is the best Blu-Ray player out there .
It plays perfectly with none of the glitches you described , and if there are any future firmware updates needed , it will be the first to get them .
I also play games , so I get a lot of value from it.I do n't buy movies anymore , since I realized how rarely I re-watch movies .
I also do n't get cable .
I have a Netflix subscription with Blu-Ray , which provides me with all the movies I could want .
I really prefer watching TV shows on disc , where I do n't have to worry about commercials and scheduling.I can watch anything in hi def , I 'm paying a low amount per month , and if I want to switch to a different technology in the future , it wo n't be painful .
It 's hard to beat that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had a better experience.
I bought a PS3, which is the best Blu-Ray player out there.
It plays perfectly with none of the glitches you described, and if there are any future firmware updates needed, it will be the first to get them.
I also play games, so I get a lot of value from it.I don't buy movies anymore, since I realized how rarely I re-watch movies.
I also don't get cable.
I have a Netflix subscription with Blu-Ray, which provides me with all the movies I could want.
I really prefer watching TV shows on disc, where I don't have to worry about commercials and scheduling.I can watch anything in hi def, I'm paying a low amount per month, and if I want to switch to a different technology in the future, it won't be painful.
It's hard to beat that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312075</id>
	<title>Blu-Ray is important...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1244836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Blu-Ray does have an important use, for backups and data storage.  I plan to get a writer as soon as the price drops a bit.
</p><p>
Blu-Ray video?  Enh.  I seen it.  I not impressed.  It's just not the leap in quality that we got with the switch from VHS to DVD.  Assuming well-crafted content (anyone can make a crappy DVD, or a crappy Blu-Ray disc), the weak link for the majority of consumers will be the TV.  Except for a small collection of videophiles and the people who just have to have the latest thing, it's not worth the cost or the trouble.  And the more restrictions enforced by content owners, the less it will be worth the cost or the trouble.
</p><p>
So, if I'm understanding this right, content owners are scheming to make life miserable for the few videophiles trying to use a mostly unnecessary video format.  Yeah, that sounds like a business plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu-Ray does have an important use , for backups and data storage .
I plan to get a writer as soon as the price drops a bit .
Blu-Ray video ?
Enh. I seen it .
I not impressed .
It 's just not the leap in quality that we got with the switch from VHS to DVD .
Assuming well-crafted content ( anyone can make a crappy DVD , or a crappy Blu-Ray disc ) , the weak link for the majority of consumers will be the TV .
Except for a small collection of videophiles and the people who just have to have the latest thing , it 's not worth the cost or the trouble .
And the more restrictions enforced by content owners , the less it will be worth the cost or the trouble .
So , if I 'm understanding this right , content owners are scheming to make life miserable for the few videophiles trying to use a mostly unnecessary video format .
Yeah , that sounds like a business plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Blu-Ray does have an important use, for backups and data storage.
I plan to get a writer as soon as the price drops a bit.
Blu-Ray video?
Enh.  I seen it.
I not impressed.
It's just not the leap in quality that we got with the switch from VHS to DVD.
Assuming well-crafted content (anyone can make a crappy DVD, or a crappy Blu-Ray disc), the weak link for the majority of consumers will be the TV.
Except for a small collection of videophiles and the people who just have to have the latest thing, it's not worth the cost or the trouble.
And the more restrictions enforced by content owners, the less it will be worth the cost or the trouble.
So, if I'm understanding this right, content owners are scheming to make life miserable for the few videophiles trying to use a mostly unnecessary video format.
Yeah, that sounds like a business plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312257</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244837280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get a projector.  i have a dell DLP projector.  Great HD and no screen lag.  and the difference between standard and HD is noticable for a lot of movies.  but I agree for your average movie its not really needed.  Go with a cartoon or documentary and man oh man if eyes could orgasm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get a projector .
i have a dell DLP projector .
Great HD and no screen lag .
and the difference between standard and HD is noticable for a lot of movies .
but I agree for your average movie its not really needed .
Go with a cartoon or documentary and man oh man if eyes could orgasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get a projector.
i have a dell DLP projector.
Great HD and no screen lag.
and the difference between standard and HD is noticable for a lot of movies.
but I agree for your average movie its not really needed.
Go with a cartoon or documentary and man oh man if eyes could orgasm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093</id>
	<title>If they do this, I will have no choice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..but to rip them a new a-hole.</p><p>Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole?  Stop the laws of physics?  The Human sensory organs are analog.  At some point, you are going to have an analog signal traversing the gap from the output device to the human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..but to rip them a new a-hole.Seriously , how do you stop the analog hole ?
Stop the laws of physics ?
The Human sensory organs are analog .
At some point , you are going to have an analog signal traversing the gap from the output device to the human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..but to rip them a new a-hole.Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole?
Stop the laws of physics?
The Human sensory organs are analog.
At some point, you are going to have an analog signal traversing the gap from the output device to the human.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308599</id>
	<title>More reason to pirate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about time these agencies grew up and realised they've missed the gravy train, they can either shut the fuck up about it now and move on or they can cry till they drown themselves in their own tears.</p><p>Instead of wasting all this money on useless measures to prevent casual copying (which lets face it, they're just trying to fleece their customers for every view) why not offer something your customers would actually use and find beneficial.</p><p>Try this for an idea: Offer your films for download at a reasonable price, as it stands in the UK, a DVD can cost around &pound;20, not looked at blu-ray and won't do whilst this shit is ongoing.  Now in the UK the minimum wage is around &pound;5 per hour, are you that much out of touch with reality that you can't see the incentive to pirate here?<br>Think about it, who is going to spend 4 hours working to then fork out on a film that could turn out to be complete rubbish, or even if it is good, is it really worth working half a day just for an hour or two of entertainment?  And while we're here, cut that fucking shit out with making me watch adverts, it's my purchase, I own it, I can do with it what I want, of that includes not watching your shitty adverts then that's what I'll do.  If you have a big sticker on the box stating Price &pound;0 - ad supported and you then update the ads to keep them relevant then yes of course I'll sit down and watch your ad sponsored film, hell I might even buy something if I like it and state where I saw it advertised.<br>Instead of fleecing your customers like you do now, offer the films as a download, for &pound;5 permanent - of course offer the DVD's for a more reasonable price for those who like the pretty boxes etc.  If you did this I'd not even bother looking for alternate sources (provided you keep the crap out like the forced ads), I'd just jump onto your website and select the film of choice and presto, few hours later I'll watch it, if it's crap no biggie.</p><p>It must be quite embarrassing that you still can't manage to work things for the better and make more money.  As it stands I won't buy anything from you - however since it's legal where I now live (it's even used as a metric to how fast you can get internet here - 1 film in 24 minutes) I'll download till my heart is content.</p><p>And if you think things are bad now, just wait till the next generation are working, you'll have 0 chance of persuading them to buy your wares - they're too used to having it when they want it, how they want it.</p><p>Basically just grow up, get some balls, grab the chance before the last train really does leave and stop trying to buy your fucking way by having laws passed preventing me from doing what I want with my purchases.</p><p>Oh and by the way - just because you did some work one day a long time ago, that doesn't mean you're entitled to compensation every time someone looks at it, wish it worked that way, I'd have retired a long time ago from all the page hits I've had!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time these agencies grew up and realised they 've missed the gravy train , they can either shut the fuck up about it now and move on or they can cry till they drown themselves in their own tears.Instead of wasting all this money on useless measures to prevent casual copying ( which lets face it , they 're just trying to fleece their customers for every view ) why not offer something your customers would actually use and find beneficial.Try this for an idea : Offer your films for download at a reasonable price , as it stands in the UK , a DVD can cost around   20 , not looked at blu-ray and wo n't do whilst this shit is ongoing .
Now in the UK the minimum wage is around   5 per hour , are you that much out of touch with reality that you ca n't see the incentive to pirate here ? Think about it , who is going to spend 4 hours working to then fork out on a film that could turn out to be complete rubbish , or even if it is good , is it really worth working half a day just for an hour or two of entertainment ?
And while we 're here , cut that fucking shit out with making me watch adverts , it 's my purchase , I own it , I can do with it what I want , of that includes not watching your shitty adverts then that 's what I 'll do .
If you have a big sticker on the box stating Price   0 - ad supported and you then update the ads to keep them relevant then yes of course I 'll sit down and watch your ad sponsored film , hell I might even buy something if I like it and state where I saw it advertised.Instead of fleecing your customers like you do now , offer the films as a download , for   5 permanent - of course offer the DVD 's for a more reasonable price for those who like the pretty boxes etc .
If you did this I 'd not even bother looking for alternate sources ( provided you keep the crap out like the forced ads ) , I 'd just jump onto your website and select the film of choice and presto , few hours later I 'll watch it , if it 's crap no biggie.It must be quite embarrassing that you still ca n't manage to work things for the better and make more money .
As it stands I wo n't buy anything from you - however since it 's legal where I now live ( it 's even used as a metric to how fast you can get internet here - 1 film in 24 minutes ) I 'll download till my heart is content.And if you think things are bad now , just wait till the next generation are working , you 'll have 0 chance of persuading them to buy your wares - they 're too used to having it when they want it , how they want it.Basically just grow up , get some balls , grab the chance before the last train really does leave and stop trying to buy your fucking way by having laws passed preventing me from doing what I want with my purchases.Oh and by the way - just because you did some work one day a long time ago , that does n't mean you 're entitled to compensation every time someone looks at it , wish it worked that way , I 'd have retired a long time ago from all the page hits I 've had !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time these agencies grew up and realised they've missed the gravy train, they can either shut the fuck up about it now and move on or they can cry till they drown themselves in their own tears.Instead of wasting all this money on useless measures to prevent casual copying (which lets face it, they're just trying to fleece their customers for every view) why not offer something your customers would actually use and find beneficial.Try this for an idea: Offer your films for download at a reasonable price, as it stands in the UK, a DVD can cost around £20, not looked at blu-ray and won't do whilst this shit is ongoing.
Now in the UK the minimum wage is around £5 per hour, are you that much out of touch with reality that you can't see the incentive to pirate here?Think about it, who is going to spend 4 hours working to then fork out on a film that could turn out to be complete rubbish, or even if it is good, is it really worth working half a day just for an hour or two of entertainment?
And while we're here, cut that fucking shit out with making me watch adverts, it's my purchase, I own it, I can do with it what I want, of that includes not watching your shitty adverts then that's what I'll do.
If you have a big sticker on the box stating Price £0 - ad supported and you then update the ads to keep them relevant then yes of course I'll sit down and watch your ad sponsored film, hell I might even buy something if I like it and state where I saw it advertised.Instead of fleecing your customers like you do now, offer the films as a download, for £5 permanent - of course offer the DVD's for a more reasonable price for those who like the pretty boxes etc.
If you did this I'd not even bother looking for alternate sources (provided you keep the crap out like the forced ads), I'd just jump onto your website and select the film of choice and presto, few hours later I'll watch it, if it's crap no biggie.It must be quite embarrassing that you still can't manage to work things for the better and make more money.
As it stands I won't buy anything from you - however since it's legal where I now live (it's even used as a metric to how fast you can get internet here - 1 film in 24 minutes) I'll download till my heart is content.And if you think things are bad now, just wait till the next generation are working, you'll have 0 chance of persuading them to buy your wares - they're too used to having it when they want it, how they want it.Basically just grow up, get some balls, grab the chance before the last train really does leave and stop trying to buy your fucking way by having laws passed preventing me from doing what I want with my purchases.Oh and by the way - just because you did some work one day a long time ago, that doesn't mean you're entitled to compensation every time someone looks at it, wish it worked that way, I'd have retired a long time ago from all the page hits I've had!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311785</id>
	<title>Re:Blu-Ray vs. Online Content</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1244835540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So... what you're saying can be paraphrased as, <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257&amp;tid=107" title="slashdot.org">"Can't change the resolution. Worse sound than Blu-Ray. Lame."</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>So... what you 're saying can be paraphrased as , " Ca n't change the resolution .
Worse sound than Blu-Ray .
Lame. " [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... what you're saying can be paraphrased as, "Can't change the resolution.
Worse sound than Blu-Ray.
Lame." [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308823</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray for Slashdot editors...again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244824020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great they fixed it... Now I look like an idiot. I'd post a screenshot, but as any self-respecting geek knows, those are very easy to fake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great they fixed it... Now I look like an idiot .
I 'd post a screenshot , but as any self-respecting geek knows , those are very easy to fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great they fixed it... Now I look like an idiot.
I'd post a screenshot, but as any self-respecting geek knows, those are very easy to fake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307771</id>
	<title>DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is one compelling reason to not upgrade to Blu-Ray, if you ask me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is one compelling reason to not upgrade to Blu-Ray , if you ask me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is one compelling reason to not upgrade to Blu-Ray, if you ask me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307861</id>
	<title>Blu-Ray is dead.  Capitalism will find a way.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It happened that a group of self-important millionaire Teabaggers went John Galt.  Yet to their surprise, the world continued to spin.  The self proclaimed "geese that lay the golden eggs" gave up their source of golden eggs for naught, learning afterwords they were not the golden geese.</p><p>I long for the days when we too can enjoy a life without the stress of the ultra-competitive society that is literally tearing apart families and destroying our future through low birth rates.  "The best living standard on earth" my ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It happened that a group of self-important millionaire Teabaggers went John Galt .
Yet to their surprise , the world continued to spin .
The self proclaimed " geese that lay the golden eggs " gave up their source of golden eggs for naught , learning afterwords they were not the golden geese.I long for the days when we too can enjoy a life without the stress of the ultra-competitive society that is literally tearing apart families and destroying our future through low birth rates .
" The best living standard on earth " my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It happened that a group of self-important millionaire Teabaggers went John Galt.
Yet to their surprise, the world continued to spin.
The self proclaimed "geese that lay the golden eggs" gave up their source of golden eggs for naught, learning afterwords they were not the golden geese.I long for the days when we too can enjoy a life without the stress of the ultra-competitive society that is literally tearing apart families and destroying our future through low birth rates.
"The best living standard on earth" my ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308845</id>
	<title>Phase Out...</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1244824140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is really <b>"phasing out"</b> is <b>my money going into their bank account</b>. <p>

With DRM you can never win. No matter what they do, since you have the keys, the published algorithm, and the encrypted data, you can always reproduce the output. If they lock the keys in the hardware it is still obtainable. They can only blacklist large sectors of hardware after you do that. Blacklisting everyone's high priced video player equipment after they spent big bucks on the device is financial suicide to say the least. What, you think that polititons and layers won't buy the same equipment you do? The DRM Group may control the specification for the system but systems can always be reversed engineered, holes in the data pathway can always be leveraged, tapped, diverted, or recorded, etc. The outcome will never be any better than a pure escalation of the age old measure, counter measure, counter counter measure, at infinitum.  I ask the 'DRM Group' to just remember, <b>it only takes one person</b> to copy the media to an unprotected format and the game is over. <b>Hundreds of millions of dollars in research</b>, design, and remanufacturing <b>all wasted</b> because of one person that didn't like not being able to watch the movie that [s]he just bought. And then there are always the professional bootleggers that have REAL resources. When does it all end? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is really " phasing out " is my money going into their bank account .
With DRM you can never win .
No matter what they do , since you have the keys , the published algorithm , and the encrypted data , you can always reproduce the output .
If they lock the keys in the hardware it is still obtainable .
They can only blacklist large sectors of hardware after you do that .
Blacklisting everyone 's high priced video player equipment after they spent big bucks on the device is financial suicide to say the least .
What , you think that polititons and layers wo n't buy the same equipment you do ?
The DRM Group may control the specification for the system but systems can always be reversed engineered , holes in the data pathway can always be leveraged , tapped , diverted , or recorded , etc .
The outcome will never be any better than a pure escalation of the age old measure , counter measure , counter counter measure , at infinitum .
I ask the 'DRM Group ' to just remember , it only takes one person to copy the media to an unprotected format and the game is over .
Hundreds of millions of dollars in research , design , and remanufacturing all wasted because of one person that did n't like not being able to watch the movie that [ s ] he just bought .
And then there are always the professional bootleggers that have REAL resources .
When does it all end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is really "phasing out" is my money going into their bank account.
With DRM you can never win.
No matter what they do, since you have the keys, the published algorithm, and the encrypted data, you can always reproduce the output.
If they lock the keys in the hardware it is still obtainable.
They can only blacklist large sectors of hardware after you do that.
Blacklisting everyone's high priced video player equipment after they spent big bucks on the device is financial suicide to say the least.
What, you think that polititons and layers won't buy the same equipment you do?
The DRM Group may control the specification for the system but systems can always be reversed engineered, holes in the data pathway can always be leveraged, tapped, diverted, or recorded, etc.
The outcome will never be any better than a pure escalation of the age old measure, counter measure, counter counter measure, at infinitum.
I ask the 'DRM Group' to just remember, it only takes one person to copy the media to an unprotected format and the game is over.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in research, design, and remanufacturing all wasted because of one person that didn't like not being able to watch the movie that [s]he just bought.
And then there are always the professional bootleggers that have REAL resources.
When does it all end? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311187</id>
	<title>Re:If they do this, I will have no choice...</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1244833260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently you haven't seen <i>The Matrix</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently you have n't seen The Matrix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently you haven't seen The Matrix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310275</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>DrgnDancer</author>
	<datestamp>1244829720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a good DVD player with HD out.  I'm sure there IS a difference in quality between a BR and a regular DVD player with HD out, but unless you put them side by side I doubt you can tell.  I'm QUITE happy with the ways normal DVDs look on my 42 inch LCD.  I simply can't justify the $300 to upgrade to BR (not to mention that the movies are more expensive).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a good DVD player with HD out .
I 'm sure there IS a difference in quality between a BR and a regular DVD player with HD out , but unless you put them side by side I doubt you can tell .
I 'm QUITE happy with the ways normal DVDs look on my 42 inch LCD .
I simply ca n't justify the $ 300 to upgrade to BR ( not to mention that the movies are more expensive ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a good DVD player with HD out.
I'm sure there IS a difference in quality between a BR and a regular DVD player with HD out, but unless you put them side by side I doubt you can tell.
I'm QUITE happy with the ways normal DVDs look on my 42 inch LCD.
I simply can't justify the $300 to upgrade to BR (not to mention that the movies are more expensive).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309727</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1244827680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I plugged in my USB drive and started up BD-Live, only to find out it's literally just trailers for other movies. Why is this a feature?</p></div><p>Does anyone else remember the scene from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085334/" title="imdb.com">A Christmas Story</a> [imdb.com] where the protagonist goes to great lengths and effort to get a ROT13 decoder wheel from the cereal box company so that he can decode the "secret message" at the end of his favorite radio program only to find out that the "secret message" is actually just another advertisement?</p><p>BTW: Why buy your blue ray player from Sony, the same company that spits on your rights and installs root kits on your PC? I wouldn't buy anything from Sony, even if they were the only vendor left, after the crap they pulled with those root kits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I plugged in my USB drive and started up BD-Live , only to find out it 's literally just trailers for other movies .
Why is this a feature ? Does anyone else remember the scene from A Christmas Story [ imdb.com ] where the protagonist goes to great lengths and effort to get a ROT13 decoder wheel from the cereal box company so that he can decode the " secret message " at the end of his favorite radio program only to find out that the " secret message " is actually just another advertisement ? BTW : Why buy your blue ray player from Sony , the same company that spits on your rights and installs root kits on your PC ?
I would n't buy anything from Sony , even if they were the only vendor left , after the crap they pulled with those root kits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I plugged in my USB drive and started up BD-Live, only to find out it's literally just trailers for other movies.
Why is this a feature?Does anyone else remember the scene from A Christmas Story [imdb.com] where the protagonist goes to great lengths and effort to get a ROT13 decoder wheel from the cereal box company so that he can decode the "secret message" at the end of his favorite radio program only to find out that the "secret message" is actually just another advertisement?BTW: Why buy your blue ray player from Sony, the same company that spits on your rights and installs root kits on your PC?
I wouldn't buy anything from Sony, even if they were the only vendor left, after the crap they pulled with those root kits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308215</id>
	<title>Ther's no TV in Star Trek</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I know why TV died in the era of Star Trek.  People just got tired of all the DRM.</p><p>On the up side, they did invent warp drive and transporters...</p><p>So, maybe DRM isn't all bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I know why TV died in the era of Star Trek .
People just got tired of all the DRM.On the up side , they did invent warp drive and transporters...So , maybe DRM is n't all bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I know why TV died in the era of Star Trek.
People just got tired of all the DRM.On the up side, they did invent warp drive and transporters...So, maybe DRM isn't all bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308917</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI connections have many problems</title>
	<author>ezelkow1</author>
	<datestamp>1244824440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alot of what you posted sounds like stupid engineering mistakes.  Most of it sounds like issues with CEC, which is the communication standard over HDMI that lets the products actually communicate with each besides using the tx/rx lines.  If the dvr shuts off when the tv goes into power saving, that is a problem with the dvr and either how it handles cec, or just how it handles the lines going down on hdmi.  The att/2wire engineers need to fix it.  The other issue of switching to an hdmi device should be able to be solved by turned off CEC on your tv/receiver/whatever is doing the switching.  Of course its not always called CEC and this was addressed at the plugfest back in the winter, trying to force manufacturers to call CEC what it is and not their own made up name of communication protocol.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alot of what you posted sounds like stupid engineering mistakes .
Most of it sounds like issues with CEC , which is the communication standard over HDMI that lets the products actually communicate with each besides using the tx/rx lines .
If the dvr shuts off when the tv goes into power saving , that is a problem with the dvr and either how it handles cec , or just how it handles the lines going down on hdmi .
The att/2wire engineers need to fix it .
The other issue of switching to an hdmi device should be able to be solved by turned off CEC on your tv/receiver/whatever is doing the switching .
Of course its not always called CEC and this was addressed at the plugfest back in the winter , trying to force manufacturers to call CEC what it is and not their own made up name of communication protocol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alot of what you posted sounds like stupid engineering mistakes.
Most of it sounds like issues with CEC, which is the communication standard over HDMI that lets the products actually communicate with each besides using the tx/rx lines.
If the dvr shuts off when the tv goes into power saving, that is a problem with the dvr and either how it handles cec, or just how it handles the lines going down on hdmi.
The att/2wire engineers need to fix it.
The other issue of switching to an hdmi device should be able to be solved by turned off CEC on your tv/receiver/whatever is doing the switching.
Of course its not always called CEC and this was addressed at the plugfest back in the winter, trying to force manufacturers to call CEC what it is and not their own made up name of communication protocol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28313285</id>
	<title>Re:"Good enough"...to pirate.</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1244797680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With digital:<br>1) It's easier to have DRM.<br>2) It's easier to make a lot of copies from a single source.<br>3) You can make infinite generations of copies (a copy of a copy of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).<br>4) It's easier to transfer digital signal without distortion.</p><p>Analog also has its advantages:<br>1) No (or easily defeated) DRM.<br>2) Signal degrades gracefully, while digital either works perfectly or not at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With digital : 1 ) It 's easier to have DRM.2 ) It 's easier to make a lot of copies from a single source.3 ) You can make infinite generations of copies ( a copy of a copy of ... ) .4 ) It 's easier to transfer digital signal without distortion.Analog also has its advantages : 1 ) No ( or easily defeated ) DRM.2 ) Signal degrades gracefully , while digital either works perfectly or not at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With digital:1) It's easier to have DRM.2) It's easier to make a lot of copies from a single source.3) You can make infinite generations of copies (a copy of a copy of ...).4) It's easier to transfer digital signal without distortion.Analog also has its advantages:1) No (or easily defeated) DRM.2) Signal degrades gracefully, while digital either works perfectly or not at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309053</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244825100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.</i>
</p><p>
So be it. After midnight tonight, <b>it will never work again.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold , dead hands .
So be it .
After midnight tonight , it will never work again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
So be it.
After midnight tonight, it will never work again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308341</id>
	<title>Anything over "there" that I need?</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1244822100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone anticipate the average person actually needing these technologies in the near future? As opposed to just wanting it to watch something movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone anticipate the average person actually needing these technologies in the near future ?
As opposed to just wanting it to watch something movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone anticipate the average person actually needing these technologies in the near future?
As opposed to just wanting it to watch something movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>DrLang21</author>
	<datestamp>1244822700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My biggest problem with Blu-ray is that there's a huge entry cost and the return is little to none.  Most of the movies in my collection were never filmed in high definition, so the quality improvements in switching to Blu-ray would be minimal.  To get those minimal improvements, I need an HD TV, a Blu-ray player, and then I need to pay the exorbitant extra cost for Blu-ray media.  I can understand why the entertainment industry doesn't understand this though.  They still have not figured out that originality and quality of story are far more important than special effects and rehashed garbage if they want people to continue to legitimately purchase their product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My biggest problem with Blu-ray is that there 's a huge entry cost and the return is little to none .
Most of the movies in my collection were never filmed in high definition , so the quality improvements in switching to Blu-ray would be minimal .
To get those minimal improvements , I need an HD TV , a Blu-ray player , and then I need to pay the exorbitant extra cost for Blu-ray media .
I can understand why the entertainment industry does n't understand this though .
They still have not figured out that originality and quality of story are far more important than special effects and rehashed garbage if they want people to continue to legitimately purchase their product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My biggest problem with Blu-ray is that there's a huge entry cost and the return is little to none.
Most of the movies in my collection were never filmed in high definition, so the quality improvements in switching to Blu-ray would be minimal.
To get those minimal improvements, I need an HD TV, a Blu-ray player, and then I need to pay the exorbitant extra cost for Blu-ray media.
I can understand why the entertainment industry doesn't understand this though.
They still have not figured out that originality and quality of story are far more important than special effects and rehashed garbage if they want people to continue to legitimately purchase their product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308793</id>
	<title>Just delayed the analog hole.</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1244823840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even with modern electronic equipment. I don't see why you cant just Tap the signal after it has been decoded and before it goes to the display. Sure it is a hardware hack but like all DRM technology it just needs to be broken once for it to be useless and spread on the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with modern electronic equipment .
I do n't see why you cant just Tap the signal after it has been decoded and before it goes to the display .
Sure it is a hardware hack but like all DRM technology it just needs to be broken once for it to be useless and spread on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with modern electronic equipment.
I don't see why you cant just Tap the signal after it has been decoded and before it goes to the display.
Sure it is a hardware hack but like all DRM technology it just needs to be broken once for it to be useless and spread on the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307921</id>
	<title>Hooray for Slashdot editors...again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's spelled heel, not heal... How much bloody effort does it take to spell and grammar check one single paragraph?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's spelled heel , not heal... How much bloody effort does it take to spell and grammar check one single paragraph ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's spelled heel, not heal... How much bloody effort does it take to spell and grammar check one single paragraph?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407</id>
	<title>will blu ray succeed?</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1244822340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I certainly wonder if Blu Ray is going to replace the DVD.  The DVD certainly took long enough to replace the VHS, even though the VHS has disadvantages.  Though the VHS was infinitely more user friendly, put it in, watch a movie, no 5th grade animation, no unskippable adverts, things like audio commentary made the DVD a compelling alternative.  Combine this with the fact that the DVD was simpler to copy than the copy protected VHS that were popular at the time, and it was a reasonable choice.
<p>
But the DVD did not have netflix streaming.  The DVD did not have online instant download purchase and rental.  The DVD did not have the legacy of broken promised that the DVD delivered.  Who believes that producers are going to invest in fully utilizing the Blu Ray features.
</p><p>
It seems to me that given the increases in bandwidth and processing power, in five years the movie industry will be at the place that music industry was a few years ago.  Desperately trying to protect content, adding increasing layers of copy protection to the media, and losing sales because they made the purchase product so much less attractive than the alternatively acquired product.  The reality is that the DVD is easy to crack, but sales are still very strong.  Back in the VHS days, the copy protection did little to stop the coping of tapes.
</p><p>
If the copy protection is done right it will be transparent.  More than likely no one will care.  But I suspect that the copy protection will add costs to the products, which will make them less attractive.  I suspect we will see DVDs for a long time, and when they are gone, people will just download the content.  I can't imagine that Blu Ray will ever be a major player in the average household.  It will be like plasma tv.  An interesting plaything for people who can afford it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly wonder if Blu Ray is going to replace the DVD .
The DVD certainly took long enough to replace the VHS , even though the VHS has disadvantages .
Though the VHS was infinitely more user friendly , put it in , watch a movie , no 5th grade animation , no unskippable adverts , things like audio commentary made the DVD a compelling alternative .
Combine this with the fact that the DVD was simpler to copy than the copy protected VHS that were popular at the time , and it was a reasonable choice .
But the DVD did not have netflix streaming .
The DVD did not have online instant download purchase and rental .
The DVD did not have the legacy of broken promised that the DVD delivered .
Who believes that producers are going to invest in fully utilizing the Blu Ray features .
It seems to me that given the increases in bandwidth and processing power , in five years the movie industry will be at the place that music industry was a few years ago .
Desperately trying to protect content , adding increasing layers of copy protection to the media , and losing sales because they made the purchase product so much less attractive than the alternatively acquired product .
The reality is that the DVD is easy to crack , but sales are still very strong .
Back in the VHS days , the copy protection did little to stop the coping of tapes .
If the copy protection is done right it will be transparent .
More than likely no one will care .
But I suspect that the copy protection will add costs to the products , which will make them less attractive .
I suspect we will see DVDs for a long time , and when they are gone , people will just download the content .
I ca n't imagine that Blu Ray will ever be a major player in the average household .
It will be like plasma tv .
An interesting plaything for people who can afford it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly wonder if Blu Ray is going to replace the DVD.
The DVD certainly took long enough to replace the VHS, even though the VHS has disadvantages.
Though the VHS was infinitely more user friendly, put it in, watch a movie, no 5th grade animation, no unskippable adverts, things like audio commentary made the DVD a compelling alternative.
Combine this with the fact that the DVD was simpler to copy than the copy protected VHS that were popular at the time, and it was a reasonable choice.
But the DVD did not have netflix streaming.
The DVD did not have online instant download purchase and rental.
The DVD did not have the legacy of broken promised that the DVD delivered.
Who believes that producers are going to invest in fully utilizing the Blu Ray features.
It seems to me that given the increases in bandwidth and processing power, in five years the movie industry will be at the place that music industry was a few years ago.
Desperately trying to protect content, adding increasing layers of copy protection to the media, and losing sales because they made the purchase product so much less attractive than the alternatively acquired product.
The reality is that the DVD is easy to crack, but sales are still very strong.
Back in the VHS days, the copy protection did little to stop the coping of tapes.
If the copy protection is done right it will be transparent.
More than likely no one will care.
But I suspect that the copy protection will add costs to the products, which will make them less attractive.
I suspect we will see DVDs for a long time, and when they are gone, people will just download the content.
I can't imagine that Blu Ray will ever be a major player in the average household.
It will be like plasma tv.
An interesting plaything for people who can afford it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308079</id>
	<title>Ignore them?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1244821020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "I'm certain there are others who might have some free time to look at Blu-Ray and the<br>&gt; 'uncrackable' AACS."</p><p>On the other hand, one could simply ignore BlueRay altogether.  Believe it or not, you almost certainly can live without it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " I 'm certain there are others who might have some free time to look at Blu-Ray and the &gt; 'uncrackable ' AACS .
" On the other hand , one could simply ignore BlueRay altogether .
Believe it or not , you almost certainly can live without it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "I'm certain there are others who might have some free time to look at Blu-Ray and the&gt; 'uncrackable' AACS.
"On the other hand, one could simply ignore BlueRay altogether.
Believe it or not, you almost certainly can live without it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309413</id>
	<title>Re:BluRay?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1244826540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When are these companies going to give up with BR? The format just wasn't going to catch on since most people see plain DVD as "good enough".</p></div> </blockquote><p>Most people saw plain VHS as "good enough", and the same argument as you make against BluRay was made against Laser Disc first, and DVD after that. It turned out right in the first case, with only a narrow segment ever adopting the technology, and wrong in the second case, with eventual fairly broad adoption. There are certainly ways in which BluRay looks a lot more like DVD in the time when it had not yet become the prime choice but was spreading (available widely for things other than dedicated video players, e.g., game machines and PCs; carried in most of the places that carry DVD, no major playback deficiencies compared to the DVD along the lines of the disk-flipping that went with LDs compared to the dominant, no physical media inconveniences compared to DVD the way the size of LDs was a problem, etc.)</p><p>OTOH, there's a lot more competition for physical media now, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are these companies going to give up with BR ?
The format just was n't going to catch on since most people see plain DVD as " good enough " .
Most people saw plain VHS as " good enough " , and the same argument as you make against BluRay was made against Laser Disc first , and DVD after that .
It turned out right in the first case , with only a narrow segment ever adopting the technology , and wrong in the second case , with eventual fairly broad adoption .
There are certainly ways in which BluRay looks a lot more like DVD in the time when it had not yet become the prime choice but was spreading ( available widely for things other than dedicated video players , e.g. , game machines and PCs ; carried in most of the places that carry DVD , no major playback deficiencies compared to the DVD along the lines of the disk-flipping that went with LDs compared to the dominant , no physical media inconveniences compared to DVD the way the size of LDs was a problem , etc .
) OTOH , there 's a lot more competition for physical media now , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When are these companies going to give up with BR?
The format just wasn't going to catch on since most people see plain DVD as "good enough".
Most people saw plain VHS as "good enough", and the same argument as you make against BluRay was made against Laser Disc first, and DVD after that.
It turned out right in the first case, with only a narrow segment ever adopting the technology, and wrong in the second case, with eventual fairly broad adoption.
There are certainly ways in which BluRay looks a lot more like DVD in the time when it had not yet become the prime choice but was spreading (available widely for things other than dedicated video players, e.g., game machines and PCs; carried in most of the places that carry DVD, no major playback deficiencies compared to the DVD along the lines of the disk-flipping that went with LDs compared to the dominant, no physical media inconveniences compared to DVD the way the size of LDs was a problem, etc.
)OTOH, there's a lot more competition for physical media now, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308489</id>
	<title>Re:"Good enough"...to pirate.</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1244822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It lets you easily copy things.</p><p>You can make 10 copies with one click of the mouse.</p><p>You can back up your stuff multiple times and even have an offsite backup.</p><p>You don't have to buy the next format that the industry tries to shove at<br>you. You can just setup your own PC based player to play back whatever you<br>happen to have.</p><p>Admittedly, these are "consumer" benefits and don't really do the media moguls any good.</p><p>I never have to buy "Escape" ever again regardless of what new formats the industry comes up with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It lets you easily copy things.You can make 10 copies with one click of the mouse.You can back up your stuff multiple times and even have an offsite backup.You do n't have to buy the next format that the industry tries to shove atyou .
You can just setup your own PC based player to play back whatever youhappen to have.Admittedly , these are " consumer " benefits and do n't really do the media moguls any good.I never have to buy " Escape " ever again regardless of what new formats the industry comes up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It lets you easily copy things.You can make 10 copies with one click of the mouse.You can back up your stuff multiple times and even have an offsite backup.You don't have to buy the next format that the industry tries to shove atyou.
You can just setup your own PC based player to play back whatever youhappen to have.Admittedly, these are "consumer" benefits and don't really do the media moguls any good.I never have to buy "Escape" ever again regardless of what new formats the industry comes up with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308719</id>
	<title>Re:"Good enough"...to pirate.</title>
	<author>mr\_mischief</author>
	<datestamp>1244823540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main problems with analog technology are related to degradation over distance, degradation under interference, and degradation of the media over time. Doing a high-quality decode to a high-resolution analog signal and then immediately encoding that back to digital can lose very little quality. It's often so little, in fact, that you won't notice. Then your source and interface are digital again and once again more resistant to degradation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problems with analog technology are related to degradation over distance , degradation under interference , and degradation of the media over time .
Doing a high-quality decode to a high-resolution analog signal and then immediately encoding that back to digital can lose very little quality .
It 's often so little , in fact , that you wo n't notice .
Then your source and interface are digital again and once again more resistant to degradation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problems with analog technology are related to degradation over distance, degradation under interference, and degradation of the media over time.
Doing a high-quality decode to a high-resolution analog signal and then immediately encoding that back to digital can lose very little quality.
It's often so little, in fact, that you won't notice.
Then your source and interface are digital again and once again more resistant to degradation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28313285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28316581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28316013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28314171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28318265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28317723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28313915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28316075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28313629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28315089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1350215_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28313915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28313285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309331
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309709
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310275
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28314171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28312257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28318265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28316013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308737
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28317723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28316075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28308407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28315089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28310135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28316581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28311641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28313629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28309429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1350215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1350215.28307771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
