<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_1422248</id>
	<title>Copyfraud Is Stealing the Public Domain</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246031880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.extreme-marine.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">malkavian</a> writes <i>"This community has complained long and loudly about the very one-sided approach to copyright, and the not-so-slow erosion of the public domain. On top of the corporate lobbying to remove increasingly larger parts of the public domain, there is now an growing pattern whereby works are directly <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/">taken from the public domain and effectively stolen</a> by a single company leveraging protections provided under copyright law. The Register's article is based on a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=787244#PaperDownload">paper by Jason Mazzone</a> at the Brooklyn Law School, which starkly details the problems that are now becoming evident as entities grab control over public domain works. The paper proposes some possible solutions, such as amending the Copyright Act. From the abstract: 'Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free. While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>malkavian writes " This community has complained long and loudly about the very one-sided approach to copyright , and the not-so-slow erosion of the public domain .
On top of the corporate lobbying to remove increasingly larger parts of the public domain , there is now an growing pattern whereby works are directly taken from the public domain and effectively stolen by a single company leveraging protections provided under copyright law .
The Register 's article is based on a paper by Jason Mazzone at the Brooklyn Law School , which starkly details the problems that are now becoming evident as entities grab control over public domain works .
The paper proposes some possible solutions , such as amending the Copyright Act .
From the abstract : 'Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud .
The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials .
There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free .
While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act , prosecutions are extremely rare .
These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale , with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted , and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>malkavian writes "This community has complained long and loudly about the very one-sided approach to copyright, and the not-so-slow erosion of the public domain.
On top of the corporate lobbying to remove increasingly larger parts of the public domain, there is now an growing pattern whereby works are directly taken from the public domain and effectively stolen by a single company leveraging protections provided under copyright law.
The Register's article is based on a paper by Jason Mazzone at the Brooklyn Law School, which starkly details the problems that are now becoming evident as entities grab control over public domain works.
The paper proposes some possible solutions, such as amending the Copyright Act.
From the abstract: 'Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud.
The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials.
There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free.
While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare.
These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487885</id>
	<title>Actual Technologies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246008900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is essentially the business model of James Monroe at his little company Actual Technologies in Indiana.  He downloads public domain database code, even stuff that's not truly in the public domain from Oracle's developer program, wraps it in a binding for OS X and SELLs it for $20 to $30 a copy.  Nevermind that the authors of the public domain code just hacked their stuff together using reverse engineering techniques for a very specific purpose, never envisioned it for general use and have copyright and experimental warnings all over.   So along come doctors, government or public finance people and they start doing important work with their database using their new $20 to $30  driver, totally oblivious to the danger even the slightest upgrade to their back-end or local database file might have.  Meanwhile, since he doesn't have much of an R&amp;D effort and he lives in Indiana, he's able to price 10 times lower than the other companies who do things the right way.  (One of those companies keeps getting sold over and over again, laying off people who do things the right way, etc.) Eventually something Bad will happen with the customers and he'll vanish into thin air leaving a couple years of wreckage behind, but in the mean time, only the copyright holders (those long gone guys who hacked together  a few lines of code to do a specific task and shared it on SF in the middle of the night) are the only ones who could legally stop him (short of a customer, who could sue for false advertising, but who is going to do that for $20 to $30?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is essentially the business model of James Monroe at his little company Actual Technologies in Indiana .
He downloads public domain database code , even stuff that 's not truly in the public domain from Oracle 's developer program , wraps it in a binding for OS X and SELLs it for $ 20 to $ 30 a copy .
Nevermind that the authors of the public domain code just hacked their stuff together using reverse engineering techniques for a very specific purpose , never envisioned it for general use and have copyright and experimental warnings all over .
So along come doctors , government or public finance people and they start doing important work with their database using their new $ 20 to $ 30 driver , totally oblivious to the danger even the slightest upgrade to their back-end or local database file might have .
Meanwhile , since he does n't have much of an R&amp;D effort and he lives in Indiana , he 's able to price 10 times lower than the other companies who do things the right way .
( One of those companies keeps getting sold over and over again , laying off people who do things the right way , etc .
) Eventually something Bad will happen with the customers and he 'll vanish into thin air leaving a couple years of wreckage behind , but in the mean time , only the copyright holders ( those long gone guys who hacked together a few lines of code to do a specific task and shared it on SF in the middle of the night ) are the only ones who could legally stop him ( short of a customer , who could sue for false advertising , but who is going to do that for $ 20 to $ 30 ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is essentially the business model of James Monroe at his little company Actual Technologies in Indiana.
He downloads public domain database code, even stuff that's not truly in the public domain from Oracle's developer program, wraps it in a binding for OS X and SELLs it for $20 to $30 a copy.
Nevermind that the authors of the public domain code just hacked their stuff together using reverse engineering techniques for a very specific purpose, never envisioned it for general use and have copyright and experimental warnings all over.
So along come doctors, government or public finance people and they start doing important work with their database using their new $20 to $30  driver, totally oblivious to the danger even the slightest upgrade to their back-end or local database file might have.
Meanwhile, since he doesn't have much of an R&amp;D effort and he lives in Indiana, he's able to price 10 times lower than the other companies who do things the right way.
(One of those companies keeps getting sold over and over again, laying off people who do things the right way, etc.
) Eventually something Bad will happen with the customers and he'll vanish into thin air leaving a couple years of wreckage behind, but in the mean time, only the copyright holders (those long gone guys who hacked together  a few lines of code to do a specific task and shared it on SF in the middle of the night) are the only ones who could legally stop him (short of a customer, who could sue for false advertising, but who is going to do that for $20 to $30?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246037460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The paper was written in 1869.</p></div><p>And when was the editing and typesetting for the edition you used done?  Do you know that there area lot of public domain music works but very few recorded performances that are in the public domain?  <br> <br>

Publishers like <a href="http://www.kessinger.net/index.php" title="kessinger.net" rel="nofollow">Kessinger Publishing</a> [kessinger.net] specialized in maintaing and providing a means for acquiring out of print public works.  They served a very valuable purpose at one point but the internet, Project Gutenberg, even Google should make them obsolete soon.  We're in a transition period.  <br> <br>

The issue with the Google books is that they don't have the original 1800s printing of the first volume.  That's why they had to rely on Kessinger.  Kessinger publishes both volumes of <i>Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan</i> and the second original printing is free on Google books.  Google faces the problem of not being able to re-edit or do its own typesetting of the first edition so instead of risking litigation they just put up what they can.  They cannot fight these fights for every book.  I think the copyfraud label applied to them is misplaced and will soon be a non-issue as others step forward with their personal collections to offer up to the internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The paper was written in 1869.And when was the editing and typesetting for the edition you used done ?
Do you know that there area lot of public domain music works but very few recorded performances that are in the public domain ?
Publishers like Kessinger Publishing [ kessinger.net ] specialized in maintaing and providing a means for acquiring out of print public works .
They served a very valuable purpose at one point but the internet , Project Gutenberg , even Google should make them obsolete soon .
We 're in a transition period .
The issue with the Google books is that they do n't have the original 1800s printing of the first volume .
That 's why they had to rely on Kessinger .
Kessinger publishes both volumes of Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan and the second original printing is free on Google books .
Google faces the problem of not being able to re-edit or do its own typesetting of the first edition so instead of risking litigation they just put up what they can .
They can not fight these fights for every book .
I think the copyfraud label applied to them is misplaced and will soon be a non-issue as others step forward with their personal collections to offer up to the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paper was written in 1869.And when was the editing and typesetting for the edition you used done?
Do you know that there area lot of public domain music works but very few recorded performances that are in the public domain?
Publishers like Kessinger Publishing [kessinger.net] specialized in maintaing and providing a means for acquiring out of print public works.
They served a very valuable purpose at one point but the internet, Project Gutenberg, even Google should make them obsolete soon.
We're in a transition period.
The issue with the Google books is that they don't have the original 1800s printing of the first volume.
That's why they had to rely on Kessinger.
Kessinger publishes both volumes of Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan and the second original printing is free on Google books.
Google faces the problem of not being able to re-edit or do its own typesetting of the first edition so instead of risking litigation they just put up what they can.
They cannot fight these fights for every book.
I think the copyfraud label applied to them is misplaced and will soon be a non-issue as others step forward with their personal collections to offer up to the internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489855</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246020420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is how sites like Project Gutenberg work; they ask people to type up the text of works that are out of copyright, and they put the words online formatted differently from any printed version.</p></div><p>Project Gutenburg asks you to scan in your books. That's one copy; then they store a copy on their server, 2 copies. Then when digitising they have individuals grab copies of a substantial part, at least 3 copies. They also say in their FAQ - <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Scanning\_FAQ#S.21.\_Will\_PG\_store\_scanned\_page\_images\_of\_my\_book.3F" title="gutenberg.org">http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Scanning\_FAQ#S.21.\_Will\_PG\_store\_scanned\_page\_images\_of\_my\_book.3F</a> [gutenberg.org] - that they now keep image copies for reproduction purposes. So I think your analysis is wrong here.; they appear to not readily offer image reproductions simply for practical reasons. They also recommend suing Archive.org for hosting higher quality image reproductions (they certainly wouldn't do that, and not get sued, if they knew that such images were copyright).</p><p>Yes, if the packaging of the textual content requires particular skill and artistry then copyright may be granted in the manner of presentation of an expired work if that manner is sufficiently original and creative. Copyright can certainly be granted in any new "work" that is created to accompany the original text (foreword, synopsis, margin notes, etc.) - this may be the copyright that your "out of copyright" book has, the picture on the cover, etc..</p><p>I suspect the library boilerplate text wording to be subtly different to that claimed - claiming a book is still copyright is going to be plainly wrong in many instances where you order an old book. The owner of that copy of the book however may be licensing your use of \_that\_copy\_. If I own a particular copy of a work I can license your use of that particular copy and not allow you to make a further copy from that particular one - I own the physical item after all. You don't have to agree to the license - I'll just refrain from letting you look at it then. This is not a copyright issue however. If my neighbour has the same book I can't stop him from giving you a copy of his, nor from you then printing and selling a copy.</p><p>In summary they don't have a copyright on that particular edition, but possibly through ownership are licensing it, or are claiming copyright on the "chrome" around the original work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how sites like Project Gutenberg work ; they ask people to type up the text of works that are out of copyright , and they put the words online formatted differently from any printed version.Project Gutenburg asks you to scan in your books .
That 's one copy ; then they store a copy on their server , 2 copies .
Then when digitising they have individuals grab copies of a substantial part , at least 3 copies .
They also say in their FAQ - http : //www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg : Scanning \ _FAQ # S.21. \ _Will \ _PG \ _store \ _scanned \ _page \ _images \ _of \ _my \ _book.3F [ gutenberg.org ] - that they now keep image copies for reproduction purposes .
So I think your analysis is wrong here .
; they appear to not readily offer image reproductions simply for practical reasons .
They also recommend suing Archive.org for hosting higher quality image reproductions ( they certainly would n't do that , and not get sued , if they knew that such images were copyright ) .Yes , if the packaging of the textual content requires particular skill and artistry then copyright may be granted in the manner of presentation of an expired work if that manner is sufficiently original and creative .
Copyright can certainly be granted in any new " work " that is created to accompany the original text ( foreword , synopsis , margin notes , etc .
) - this may be the copyright that your " out of copyright " book has , the picture on the cover , etc..I suspect the library boilerplate text wording to be subtly different to that claimed - claiming a book is still copyright is going to be plainly wrong in many instances where you order an old book .
The owner of that copy of the book however may be licensing your use of \ _that \ _copy \ _ .
If I own a particular copy of a work I can license your use of that particular copy and not allow you to make a further copy from that particular one - I own the physical item after all .
You do n't have to agree to the license - I 'll just refrain from letting you look at it then .
This is not a copyright issue however .
If my neighbour has the same book I ca n't stop him from giving you a copy of his , nor from you then printing and selling a copy.In summary they do n't have a copyright on that particular edition , but possibly through ownership are licensing it , or are claiming copyright on the " chrome " around the original work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how sites like Project Gutenberg work; they ask people to type up the text of works that are out of copyright, and they put the words online formatted differently from any printed version.Project Gutenburg asks you to scan in your books.
That's one copy; then they store a copy on their server, 2 copies.
Then when digitising they have individuals grab copies of a substantial part, at least 3 copies.
They also say in their FAQ - http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Scanning\_FAQ#S.21.\_Will\_PG\_store\_scanned\_page\_images\_of\_my\_book.3F [gutenberg.org] - that they now keep image copies for reproduction purposes.
So I think your analysis is wrong here.
; they appear to not readily offer image reproductions simply for practical reasons.
They also recommend suing Archive.org for hosting higher quality image reproductions (they certainly wouldn't do that, and not get sued, if they knew that such images were copyright).Yes, if the packaging of the textual content requires particular skill and artistry then copyright may be granted in the manner of presentation of an expired work if that manner is sufficiently original and creative.
Copyright can certainly be granted in any new "work" that is created to accompany the original text (foreword, synopsis, margin notes, etc.
) - this may be the copyright that your "out of copyright" book has, the picture on the cover, etc..I suspect the library boilerplate text wording to be subtly different to that claimed - claiming a book is still copyright is going to be plainly wrong in many instances where you order an old book.
The owner of that copy of the book however may be licensing your use of \_that\_copy\_.
If I own a particular copy of a work I can license your use of that particular copy and not allow you to make a further copy from that particular one - I own the physical item after all.
You don't have to agree to the license - I'll just refrain from letting you look at it then.
This is not a copyright issue however.
If my neighbour has the same book I can't stop him from giving you a copy of his, nor from you then printing and selling a copy.In summary they don't have a copyright on that particular edition, but possibly through ownership are licensing it, or are claiming copyright on the "chrome" around the original work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488141</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246010100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Editing most certainly should mean a new copyright if it is anything more than correcting typos and similar. Editing a work is a creative process, the same as writing the work in the first place. There is an argument to be made as to whether it is such a creative process that it should have the same term of protection as original authorship. It could be said that a new edit of work should be treated the same as a recording of a composition, ie 50 years from date of recording, or 50 years from date of commercial release of the work if the commercial release occurs in that time [at least in the UK].</p><p>As for typesetting, in the US you are correct that merely typesetting a work does not produce a separate copyright. In many other jurisdictions&#226;"again including the UK&#226;"you are wrong. In the UK newly typesetting an edition of an out of copyright work provides the typesetter with a new copyright which runs for 25 years from date of publication.</p><p>Something that is certainly correct is that copyfraud should be punished harshly. Publishing a facsimile edition of a public domain work in the US and claiming any copyright over it is copyfraud. Publishing a similar edition which has had changes made to it and claiming more than copyright over those changes is also copyfraud. Copyfraud is an accurate term for what is going on. As other replies to this thread have noted, claiming copyright over something in the public domain is stealing from everyone because it denies everyone the change to use that work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Editing most certainly should mean a new copyright if it is anything more than correcting typos and similar .
Editing a work is a creative process , the same as writing the work in the first place .
There is an argument to be made as to whether it is such a creative process that it should have the same term of protection as original authorship .
It could be said that a new edit of work should be treated the same as a recording of a composition , ie 50 years from date of recording , or 50 years from date of commercial release of the work if the commercial release occurs in that time [ at least in the UK ] .As for typesetting , in the US you are correct that merely typesetting a work does not produce a separate copyright .
In many other jurisdictions   " again including the UK   " you are wrong .
In the UK newly typesetting an edition of an out of copyright work provides the typesetter with a new copyright which runs for 25 years from date of publication.Something that is certainly correct is that copyfraud should be punished harshly .
Publishing a facsimile edition of a public domain work in the US and claiming any copyright over it is copyfraud .
Publishing a similar edition which has had changes made to it and claiming more than copyright over those changes is also copyfraud .
Copyfraud is an accurate term for what is going on .
As other replies to this thread have noted , claiming copyright over something in the public domain is stealing from everyone because it denies everyone the change to use that work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editing most certainly should mean a new copyright if it is anything more than correcting typos and similar.
Editing a work is a creative process, the same as writing the work in the first place.
There is an argument to be made as to whether it is such a creative process that it should have the same term of protection as original authorship.
It could be said that a new edit of work should be treated the same as a recording of a composition, ie 50 years from date of recording, or 50 years from date of commercial release of the work if the commercial release occurs in that time [at least in the UK].As for typesetting, in the US you are correct that merely typesetting a work does not produce a separate copyright.
In many other jurisdictionsâ"again including the UKâ"you are wrong.
In the UK newly typesetting an edition of an out of copyright work provides the typesetter with a new copyright which runs for 25 years from date of publication.Something that is certainly correct is that copyfraud should be punished harshly.
Publishing a facsimile edition of a public domain work in the US and claiming any copyright over it is copyfraud.
Publishing a similar edition which has had changes made to it and claiming more than copyright over those changes is also copyfraud.
Copyfraud is an accurate term for what is going on.
As other replies to this thread have noted, claiming copyright over something in the public domain is stealing from everyone because it denies everyone the change to use that work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483985</id>
	<title>Stealing stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246035960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that is or is about to be Public Domain, needs to be a death penalty and a total revocation of any money garnered in such a manner. I am talking about the total board and attourneys involved, being killed.</p><p>To emphazize the point, their families need to be killed also. Nip this shit in the bud!!! Kill them all, Redjack, redjack !!!!!!!!!<br>Die, Die, Die !!!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is or is about to be Public Domain , needs to be a death penalty and a total revocation of any money garnered in such a manner .
I am talking about the total board and attourneys involved , being killed.To emphazize the point , their families need to be killed also .
Nip this shit in the bud ! ! !
Kill them all , Redjack , redjack ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! Die , Die , Die ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is or is about to be Public Domain, needs to be a death penalty and a total revocation of any money garnered in such a manner.
I am talking about the total board and attourneys involved, being killed.To emphazize the point, their families need to be killed also.
Nip this shit in the bud!!!
Kill them all, Redjack, redjack !!!!!!!!
!Die, Die, Die !!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487361</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright itself is theft of the public domain</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1246049880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you're wrong in some cases.</p><p>Some things require very expensive materials, and some things require very expensive skills to work.  Example being diamonds, gold, platinum, etc.</p><p>Some things require very expensive skills, but almost no tangible material.  Some things require very expensive materials, but almost no tangible skill.  Example, writing a novel.  And another example, driving a Lexus.</p><p>If someone were to steal the electricity and computer-hours to write a novel on your computer, but didn't steal it from you, you would not be entitled to own the rights to the novel.  Similarly, if someone stole your car and then used it to make pizza deliveries, you wouldn't be granted the income from the deliveries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you 're wrong in some cases.Some things require very expensive materials , and some things require very expensive skills to work .
Example being diamonds , gold , platinum , etc.Some things require very expensive skills , but almost no tangible material .
Some things require very expensive materials , but almost no tangible skill .
Example , writing a novel .
And another example , driving a Lexus.If someone were to steal the electricity and computer-hours to write a novel on your computer , but did n't steal it from you , you would not be entitled to own the rights to the novel .
Similarly , if someone stole your car and then used it to make pizza deliveries , you would n't be granted the income from the deliveries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you're wrong in some cases.Some things require very expensive materials, and some things require very expensive skills to work.
Example being diamonds, gold, platinum, etc.Some things require very expensive skills, but almost no tangible material.
Some things require very expensive materials, but almost no tangible skill.
Example, writing a novel.
And another example, driving a Lexus.If someone were to steal the electricity and computer-hours to write a novel on your computer, but didn't steal it from you, you would not be entitled to own the rights to the novel.
Similarly, if someone stole your car and then used it to make pizza deliveries, you wouldn't be granted the income from the deliveries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485643</id>
	<title>Two bad examples</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1246042200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Lion King might be a bad example. It wasn't by the Grimms, H.C. Andersen, Rudyard Kipling, Carlo Collodi, etc., like the other ones you mentioned. It was allegedly original, a loose retelling of Shakespeare's Hamlet, but also allegedly a knockoff of Kimba the White Lion.
</p><p>
J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan was still copyrighted in much of the world when Disney's movie came out, and even after the expiration of the UK copyright in 1987 (and its subsequent restoration once the EU formed and re-expiration), the UK government still taxes copies of Peter Pan equivalent to the royalty that would otherwise be due and gives the proceeds to GOSH, the former owner of copyright.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Lion King might be a bad example .
It was n't by the Grimms , H.C. Andersen , Rudyard Kipling , Carlo Collodi , etc. , like the other ones you mentioned .
It was allegedly original , a loose retelling of Shakespeare 's Hamlet , but also allegedly a knockoff of Kimba the White Lion .
J.M. Barrie 's Peter Pan was still copyrighted in much of the world when Disney 's movie came out , and even after the expiration of the UK copyright in 1987 ( and its subsequent restoration once the EU formed and re-expiration ) , the UK government still taxes copies of Peter Pan equivalent to the royalty that would otherwise be due and gives the proceeds to GOSH , the former owner of copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Lion King might be a bad example.
It wasn't by the Grimms, H.C. Andersen, Rudyard Kipling, Carlo Collodi, etc., like the other ones you mentioned.
It was allegedly original, a loose retelling of Shakespeare's Hamlet, but also allegedly a knockoff of Kimba the White Lion.
J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan was still copyrighted in much of the world when Disney's movie came out, and even after the expiration of the UK copyright in 1987 (and its subsequent restoration once the EU formed and re-expiration), the UK government still taxes copies of Peter Pan equivalent to the royalty that would otherwise be due and gives the proceeds to GOSH, the former owner of copyright.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484889</id>
	<title>Some Nasty Pop Culture Examples</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1246039200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember how the movie <i>It's a Wonderful Life</i> used to be played in the afternoon on every single station with air time to fill leading up to Christmas? This happened because the movie bombed in the box office, and the studio didn't bother to renew the copyright.</p><p>Then Aaron Spelling bought up various IP rights relating to the movie, such as ownership of a song used in one scene. He assumed control over distribution of the movie, based on a complicated legal theory that a lot of IP lawyers consider totally bogus. But this theory has never been challenged in court, and never will be &mdash; nobody's going to start an expensive legal battle over their right to show a movie without paying a fee.</p><p>Another one that really bothers me: the documentary <i>Mad Hot Ballroom</i>, about NYC elementary school kids learning ballroom dancing.  Lots of music, of course, and that ended up costing them lots of money in "clearance fees" for the right to use it. How much? By the time it went to DVD, $140,000, almost half the cost of making the movie.</p><p>People who make this kind of movie don't have a lot of cash to throw around, so they did what they could to minimize it. At first, they only paid for the rights for a couple of weeks, so they could show the film on the festival circuit, and get some investors to cover the rest. They also dubbed over any music that they thought wasn't important to the movie, such as a scene where some kids are playing a video game.</p><p>One particular outrageous case: there's a scene where a woman is walking down the street, and her cell phone rings for 6 seconds before she answers it. The ring tone is the theme from <i>Rocky</i>, and the director decided she had to have that little bit of music to make the scene work. For that she needed clearance from Sprint (ring tone rights) and EMI (publishing rights). Sprint saw it as product placement and let her have clearance for free. But EMI wanted $10K! She finally bargained them down to $2K. Even so, she winces every time she see that scene, and has to tell herself that that six seconds was worth that much.</p><p>She told an interviewer that if had known what a big hassle music clearance was going to be, she probably wouldn't have made the movie.</p><p>Now, all you amateur lawyers are screaming <i> <b>FAIR USE! FAIR USE!</b> </i>. And for once you're right. Every lawyer I've heard talk about the subject agrees that music that happens to be overheard while making a documentary is fair use; only music performed <i>for</i> the film requires clearance. This is not just pro-electronic-free types. This includes pro-industry lawyers with a very narrow definition of fair use!</p><p>But despite the unanimity of legal opinion, this hasn't really been tested in court. Insurance companies that bond productions prefer to err on the side of caution, and the entertainment conglomerates that control facilities and distribution networks have an interest in keeping things narrow. Everybody agrees that if there's ever a test case, the documentary-use-is-fair-use doctrine will almost certainly prevail.</p><p>But will there ever be a test case? Again, money is an issue. When you're struggling to raise a hundred K or two to get your indie documentary made, an expensive court battle is just not an option.</p><p>Legal joke: "Sir, I've examined the evidence, and you have an extremely good case. The only question I have for you is this: How much justice can you afford?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember how the movie It 's a Wonderful Life used to be played in the afternoon on every single station with air time to fill leading up to Christmas ?
This happened because the movie bombed in the box office , and the studio did n't bother to renew the copyright.Then Aaron Spelling bought up various IP rights relating to the movie , such as ownership of a song used in one scene .
He assumed control over distribution of the movie , based on a complicated legal theory that a lot of IP lawyers consider totally bogus .
But this theory has never been challenged in court , and never will be    nobody 's going to start an expensive legal battle over their right to show a movie without paying a fee.Another one that really bothers me : the documentary Mad Hot Ballroom , about NYC elementary school kids learning ballroom dancing .
Lots of music , of course , and that ended up costing them lots of money in " clearance fees " for the right to use it .
How much ?
By the time it went to DVD , $ 140,000 , almost half the cost of making the movie.People who make this kind of movie do n't have a lot of cash to throw around , so they did what they could to minimize it .
At first , they only paid for the rights for a couple of weeks , so they could show the film on the festival circuit , and get some investors to cover the rest .
They also dubbed over any music that they thought was n't important to the movie , such as a scene where some kids are playing a video game.One particular outrageous case : there 's a scene where a woman is walking down the street , and her cell phone rings for 6 seconds before she answers it .
The ring tone is the theme from Rocky , and the director decided she had to have that little bit of music to make the scene work .
For that she needed clearance from Sprint ( ring tone rights ) and EMI ( publishing rights ) .
Sprint saw it as product placement and let her have clearance for free .
But EMI wanted $ 10K !
She finally bargained them down to $ 2K .
Even so , she winces every time she see that scene , and has to tell herself that that six seconds was worth that much.She told an interviewer that if had known what a big hassle music clearance was going to be , she probably would n't have made the movie.Now , all you amateur lawyers are screaming FAIR USE !
FAIR USE !
. And for once you 're right .
Every lawyer I 've heard talk about the subject agrees that music that happens to be overheard while making a documentary is fair use ; only music performed for the film requires clearance .
This is not just pro-electronic-free types .
This includes pro-industry lawyers with a very narrow definition of fair use ! But despite the unanimity of legal opinion , this has n't really been tested in court .
Insurance companies that bond productions prefer to err on the side of caution , and the entertainment conglomerates that control facilities and distribution networks have an interest in keeping things narrow .
Everybody agrees that if there 's ever a test case , the documentary-use-is-fair-use doctrine will almost certainly prevail.But will there ever be a test case ?
Again , money is an issue .
When you 're struggling to raise a hundred K or two to get your indie documentary made , an expensive court battle is just not an option.Legal joke : " Sir , I 've examined the evidence , and you have an extremely good case .
The only question I have for you is this : How much justice can you afford ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember how the movie It's a Wonderful Life used to be played in the afternoon on every single station with air time to fill leading up to Christmas?
This happened because the movie bombed in the box office, and the studio didn't bother to renew the copyright.Then Aaron Spelling bought up various IP rights relating to the movie, such as ownership of a song used in one scene.
He assumed control over distribution of the movie, based on a complicated legal theory that a lot of IP lawyers consider totally bogus.
But this theory has never been challenged in court, and never will be — nobody's going to start an expensive legal battle over their right to show a movie without paying a fee.Another one that really bothers me: the documentary Mad Hot Ballroom, about NYC elementary school kids learning ballroom dancing.
Lots of music, of course, and that ended up costing them lots of money in "clearance fees" for the right to use it.
How much?
By the time it went to DVD, $140,000, almost half the cost of making the movie.People who make this kind of movie don't have a lot of cash to throw around, so they did what they could to minimize it.
At first, they only paid for the rights for a couple of weeks, so they could show the film on the festival circuit, and get some investors to cover the rest.
They also dubbed over any music that they thought wasn't important to the movie, such as a scene where some kids are playing a video game.One particular outrageous case: there's a scene where a woman is walking down the street, and her cell phone rings for 6 seconds before she answers it.
The ring tone is the theme from Rocky, and the director decided she had to have that little bit of music to make the scene work.
For that she needed clearance from Sprint (ring tone rights) and EMI (publishing rights).
Sprint saw it as product placement and let her have clearance for free.
But EMI wanted $10K!
She finally bargained them down to $2K.
Even so, she winces every time she see that scene, and has to tell herself that that six seconds was worth that much.She told an interviewer that if had known what a big hassle music clearance was going to be, she probably wouldn't have made the movie.Now, all you amateur lawyers are screaming  FAIR USE!
FAIR USE!
. And for once you're right.
Every lawyer I've heard talk about the subject agrees that music that happens to be overheard while making a documentary is fair use; only music performed for the film requires clearance.
This is not just pro-electronic-free types.
This includes pro-industry lawyers with a very narrow definition of fair use!But despite the unanimity of legal opinion, this hasn't really been tested in court.
Insurance companies that bond productions prefer to err on the side of caution, and the entertainment conglomerates that control facilities and distribution networks have an interest in keeping things narrow.
Everybody agrees that if there's ever a test case, the documentary-use-is-fair-use doctrine will almost certainly prevail.But will there ever be a test case?
Again, money is an issue.
When you're struggling to raise a hundred K or two to get your indie documentary made, an expensive court battle is just not an option.Legal joke: "Sir, I've examined the evidence, and you have an extremely good case.
The only question I have for you is this: How much justice can you afford?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486297</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrites</title>
	<author>Travelsonic</author>
	<datestamp>1246045080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Must not feed the troll... must not feed... the... troll...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Must not feed the troll... must not feed... the... troll.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must not feed the troll... must not feed... the... troll...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28492319</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246045140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not theft. PD is not like the GPL. Anyone can do whatever the fuck they want with a PD work, include selling it to you.</p><p>The difference is whether they have any reasonable claim to come after you if you don't pay their buck twenty five -- they probably don't, in this instance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not theft .
PD is not like the GPL .
Anyone can do whatever the fuck they want with a PD work , include selling it to you.The difference is whether they have any reasonable claim to come after you if you do n't pay their buck twenty five -- they probably do n't , in this instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not theft.
PD is not like the GPL.
Anyone can do whatever the fuck they want with a PD work, include selling it to you.The difference is whether they have any reasonable claim to come after you if you don't pay their buck twenty five -- they probably don't, in this instance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485957</id>
	<title>Nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246043520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look up "primitive accumulation". (While you're at it, look up the Latin origin of the word "private" as in "private property".) That's what is currently happening in the area of digitally encoded content. What I find strange is that all those, to use their oxymoron, "anarchocapitalist" slashdotters seem to oppose that mechanism of stealing from the commons that is at the very core, no, that is the very core of capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look up " primitive accumulation " .
( While you 're at it , look up the Latin origin of the word " private " as in " private property " .
) That 's what is currently happening in the area of digitally encoded content .
What I find strange is that all those , to use their oxymoron , " anarchocapitalist " slashdotters seem to oppose that mechanism of stealing from the commons that is at the very core , no , that is the very core of capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look up "primitive accumulation".
(While you're at it, look up the Latin origin of the word "private" as in "private property".
) That's what is currently happening in the area of digitally encoded content.
What I find strange is that all those, to use their oxymoron, "anarchocapitalist" slashdotters seem to oppose that mechanism of stealing from the commons that is at the very core, no, that is the very core of capitalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488795</id>
	<title>Is a law necessary?</title>
	<author>scorilo</author>
	<datestamp>1246013340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The opinion of the Harvard Prof who thinks that the huge damages awarded for copyright infringement are unconstitutional has been reported here. Is a law really necessary to sue a self-described copyright holder? Isn't there some sort of quid pro quo in effect?</p><p>For instance, if WMG gets my video banned on YouTube even though it's not using its IP, shouldn't I be able to receive the kind of damages they get if I were to download their music without paying for it? Rather than wait for the law to happen, shouldn't someone (like a moneyed individutal + EFF) take a big IP bully to court?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The opinion of the Harvard Prof who thinks that the huge damages awarded for copyright infringement are unconstitutional has been reported here .
Is a law really necessary to sue a self-described copyright holder ?
Is n't there some sort of quid pro quo in effect ? For instance , if WMG gets my video banned on YouTube even though it 's not using its IP , should n't I be able to receive the kind of damages they get if I were to download their music without paying for it ?
Rather than wait for the law to happen , should n't someone ( like a moneyed individutal + EFF ) take a big IP bully to court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The opinion of the Harvard Prof who thinks that the huge damages awarded for copyright infringement are unconstitutional has been reported here.
Is a law really necessary to sue a self-described copyright holder?
Isn't there some sort of quid pro quo in effect?For instance, if WMG gets my video banned on YouTube even though it's not using its IP, shouldn't I be able to receive the kind of damages they get if I were to download their music without paying for it?
Rather than wait for the law to happen, shouldn't someone (like a moneyed individutal + EFF) take a big IP bully to court?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484589</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1246038240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The expression of a work is copyrightable, even if the work itself is not copyrighted.  If however you merely copy the work entire you have created nothing copyrightable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The expression of a work is copyrightable , even if the work itself is not copyrighted .
If however you merely copy the work entire you have created nothing copyrightable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The expression of a work is copyrightable, even if the work itself is not copyrighted.
If however you merely copy the work entire you have created nothing copyrightable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487581</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246007580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The claimed copyright is probably valid, but it applies to that printed edition of the work."</p><p>That doesn't make any sense.  The printed edition in question was entirely composed, typeset, and printed in 1869 or earlier.  It's the time of the creation and the imprint/edition of the work.  As far as I know, there has never been any subsequent edition or revision (it's an old, obscure scientific journal).  The end.  Copyright is a expired as the dead parrot in the Monty Python sketch.</p><p>Or, are you seriously telling me that the mere act of slapping that old journal onto the face of a photocopier and sending the copy to me created a new piece of work for which I should pay $1.25 if I want to make another copy myself?  I don't buy that.</p><p>I'm not a lawyer, but I remember reading about a legal case where it was made clear that mere reproduction of an expired work did not result in creation of a new work, even if there was a fair amount of technical skill involved in making the copy accurately.  So, for example, photographing a painting by Leonardo da Vinci with the intent of representing it as accurately as possible does not create a new copyrightable work.  It's different if the process involves some creativity (e.g., photographing a 3D sculpture), but straight 2D reproduction of an image != new copyright.</p><p>I guess my point is, the situation I'm talking about is like the "scan of the 1723 musical score" you mention in your example.  The only difference is the date (1869), and, no, it definitely wasn't a later edition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The claimed copyright is probably valid , but it applies to that printed edition of the work .
" That does n't make any sense .
The printed edition in question was entirely composed , typeset , and printed in 1869 or earlier .
It 's the time of the creation and the imprint/edition of the work .
As far as I know , there has never been any subsequent edition or revision ( it 's an old , obscure scientific journal ) .
The end .
Copyright is a expired as the dead parrot in the Monty Python sketch.Or , are you seriously telling me that the mere act of slapping that old journal onto the face of a photocopier and sending the copy to me created a new piece of work for which I should pay $ 1.25 if I want to make another copy myself ?
I do n't buy that.I 'm not a lawyer , but I remember reading about a legal case where it was made clear that mere reproduction of an expired work did not result in creation of a new work , even if there was a fair amount of technical skill involved in making the copy accurately .
So , for example , photographing a painting by Leonardo da Vinci with the intent of representing it as accurately as possible does not create a new copyrightable work .
It 's different if the process involves some creativity ( e.g. , photographing a 3D sculpture ) , but straight 2D reproduction of an image ! = new copyright.I guess my point is , the situation I 'm talking about is like the " scan of the 1723 musical score " you mention in your example .
The only difference is the date ( 1869 ) , and , no , it definitely was n't a later edition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The claimed copyright is probably valid, but it applies to that printed edition of the work.
"That doesn't make any sense.
The printed edition in question was entirely composed, typeset, and printed in 1869 or earlier.
It's the time of the creation and the imprint/edition of the work.
As far as I know, there has never been any subsequent edition or revision (it's an old, obscure scientific journal).
The end.
Copyright is a expired as the dead parrot in the Monty Python sketch.Or, are you seriously telling me that the mere act of slapping that old journal onto the face of a photocopier and sending the copy to me created a new piece of work for which I should pay $1.25 if I want to make another copy myself?
I don't buy that.I'm not a lawyer, but I remember reading about a legal case where it was made clear that mere reproduction of an expired work did not result in creation of a new work, even if there was a fair amount of technical skill involved in making the copy accurately.
So, for example, photographing a painting by Leonardo da Vinci with the intent of representing it as accurately as possible does not create a new copyrightable work.
It's different if the process involves some creativity (e.g., photographing a 3D sculpture), but straight 2D reproduction of an image != new copyright.I guess my point is, the situation I'm talking about is like the "scan of the 1723 musical score" you mention in your example.
The only difference is the date (1869), and, no, it definitely wasn't a later edition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489227</id>
	<title>Re:I see no issue here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246015740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the issue is that some of these companies try to hide behind semantics to try and imply to people that they are the original owner/rights holder of the original work. That is definitely illegal (i.e. fraud, plagiarism). There are even cases of people being sent nasty legal c&amp;d 'copyright' letters for extracting the 'ideas' -- which are in the public domain and no longer copyright-able -- from a printed copy (i.e. typing out a book on their computer) and distributing it somewhere.</p><p>(tl;dr version) Some companies try to use poor wording, common misconceptions, and strong-arm tactics to get as close to claiming a copyright on the original as possible without 'technically' falling on the wrong side of the law. Some people take issue with this since they are skirting the spirit of what the law was meant  to embody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the issue is that some of these companies try to hide behind semantics to try and imply to people that they are the original owner/rights holder of the original work .
That is definitely illegal ( i.e .
fraud , plagiarism ) .
There are even cases of people being sent nasty legal c&amp;d 'copyright ' letters for extracting the 'ideas ' -- which are in the public domain and no longer copyright-able -- from a printed copy ( i.e .
typing out a book on their computer ) and distributing it somewhere .
( tl ; dr version ) Some companies try to use poor wording , common misconceptions , and strong-arm tactics to get as close to claiming a copyright on the original as possible without 'technically ' falling on the wrong side of the law .
Some people take issue with this since they are skirting the spirit of what the law was meant to embody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the issue is that some of these companies try to hide behind semantics to try and imply to people that they are the original owner/rights holder of the original work.
That is definitely illegal (i.e.
fraud, plagiarism).
There are even cases of people being sent nasty legal c&amp;d 'copyright' letters for extracting the 'ideas' -- which are in the public domain and no longer copyright-able -- from a printed copy (i.e.
typing out a book on their computer) and distributing it somewhere.
(tl;dr version) Some companies try to use poor wording, common misconceptions, and strong-arm tactics to get as close to claiming a copyright on the original as possible without 'technically' falling on the wrong side of the law.
Some people take issue with this since they are skirting the spirit of what the law was meant  to embody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28492495</id>
	<title>Where I come from this is criminal...</title>
	<author>SlovakWakko</author>
	<datestamp>1246133400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and I guess it's the same everywhere. In our (Slovakia) criminal code fraud is defined as when "somebody deceives somebody else, or uses their mistake to enrich himself". This is exactly what copyfraud is about, and it's punishable by jail time. Also, of course, since it's a criminal offense the aggrieved party is entitiled to compensation. This all has nothing to do with copyright laws, just plain criminal code...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I guess it 's the same everywhere .
In our ( Slovakia ) criminal code fraud is defined as when " somebody deceives somebody else , or uses their mistake to enrich himself " .
This is exactly what copyfraud is about , and it 's punishable by jail time .
Also , of course , since it 's a criminal offense the aggrieved party is entitiled to compensation .
This all has nothing to do with copyright laws , just plain criminal code.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I guess it's the same everywhere.
In our (Slovakia) criminal code fraud is defined as when "somebody deceives somebody else, or uses their mistake to enrich himself".
This is exactly what copyfraud is about, and it's punishable by jail time.
Also, of course, since it's a criminal offense the aggrieved party is entitiled to compensation.
This all has nothing to do with copyright laws, just plain criminal code...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490737</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a good example of the kind of "access license" that sometimes applies to copyrighted works, and supercedes the expired copyright in the case you describe.  But in my case I didn't sign or otherwise agree to any contract requiring me to abide by the licensing terms specified.  Had they asked me to abide by terms that required I could not make additional copies of a work from 1869 that had expired into the public domain without paying them more money, I would have told them they could keep their copy.  I would get it from a public library that has policies that don't try to wall off the public domain by making it more difficult to access.  A major reason for the public domain in copyright law was to allow for the possibility that the work could freely proliferate after the copyright term was over.  If people are stingy with access to their copies of expired works, that kind of defeats the point.</p><p>For museums and libraries, maintaining their collections costs money, and I'm happy to pay for the one copy to support that and the service they provide.  But subsequent ones?  No way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a good example of the kind of " access license " that sometimes applies to copyrighted works , and supercedes the expired copyright in the case you describe .
But in my case I did n't sign or otherwise agree to any contract requiring me to abide by the licensing terms specified .
Had they asked me to abide by terms that required I could not make additional copies of a work from 1869 that had expired into the public domain without paying them more money , I would have told them they could keep their copy .
I would get it from a public library that has policies that do n't try to wall off the public domain by making it more difficult to access .
A major reason for the public domain in copyright law was to allow for the possibility that the work could freely proliferate after the copyright term was over .
If people are stingy with access to their copies of expired works , that kind of defeats the point.For museums and libraries , maintaining their collections costs money , and I 'm happy to pay for the one copy to support that and the service they provide .
But subsequent ones ?
No way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a good example of the kind of "access license" that sometimes applies to copyrighted works, and supercedes the expired copyright in the case you describe.
But in my case I didn't sign or otherwise agree to any contract requiring me to abide by the licensing terms specified.
Had they asked me to abide by terms that required I could not make additional copies of a work from 1869 that had expired into the public domain without paying them more money, I would have told them they could keep their copy.
I would get it from a public library that has policies that don't try to wall off the public domain by making it more difficult to access.
A major reason for the public domain in copyright law was to allow for the possibility that the work could freely proliferate after the copyright term was over.
If people are stingy with access to their copies of expired works, that kind of defeats the point.For museums and libraries, maintaining their collections costs money, and I'm happy to pay for the one copy to support that and the service they provide.
But subsequent ones?
No way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484731</id>
	<title>Sweeping</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246038660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This community has complained long and loudly about the very one-sided approach to copyright, and the not-so-slow erosion of the public domain.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I haven't seen a sweeping generalisation that I didn't like.

Oh, and don't use "an" before a sounded consonant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This community has complained long and loudly about the very one-sided approach to copyright , and the not-so-slow erosion of the public domain .
I have n't seen a sweeping generalisation that I did n't like .
Oh , and do n't use " an " before a sounded consonant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This community has complained long and loudly about the very one-sided approach to copyright, and the not-so-slow erosion of the public domain.
I haven't seen a sweeping generalisation that I didn't like.
Oh, and don't use "an" before a sounded consonant.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484681</id>
	<title>As an aside.</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246038480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...does anyone think it's stupidly bitchy to complain that Creative Commons came up with a 'public domain' tag?</p><p>
Hey, Charles Eicher, that's because the Creative Common tag is a 'standard' for marking up ownership and licensing of documents. It's not an attempt to fucking claim ownership, it's a way to mark a document as public domain using an existing nomenclature that now has been expanded to include 'public domain'.</p><p>
I can only imagine what you think about the Dewey decimal system, a system that has claimed ownership of <b>all human knowledge</b>. Or, at least, classified it using their nomenclature, which in your book is the same thing. (Luckily, they also own your book.)</p><p>
And, um, Creative Commons isn't attempting to 'expand their licensing authority', as they <b>have no</b> licensing authority to start with. They wrote a bunch of template licenses for people to use. And came up with some way of marking content to use their licenses so that stuff can be found automatically. That's it. And now they've included public domain works as one of their 'licensing templates' you can mark things as under, although obviously it's not actually a license in that case.</p><p>
I do love the way you blame flickr for not having public domain licensing as an option, only CC licensing, but then bitch and whine when CC adds a way to mark things 'public domain' using their tags, which would have actually solved the problem with flickr from the <b>start</b> if 'public domain' had been one of the choices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...does anyone think it 's stupidly bitchy to complain that Creative Commons came up with a 'public domain ' tag ?
Hey , Charles Eicher , that 's because the Creative Common tag is a 'standard ' for marking up ownership and licensing of documents .
It 's not an attempt to fucking claim ownership , it 's a way to mark a document as public domain using an existing nomenclature that now has been expanded to include 'public domain' .
I can only imagine what you think about the Dewey decimal system , a system that has claimed ownership of all human knowledge .
Or , at least , classified it using their nomenclature , which in your book is the same thing .
( Luckily , they also own your book .
) And , um , Creative Commons is n't attempting to 'expand their licensing authority ' , as they have no licensing authority to start with .
They wrote a bunch of template licenses for people to use .
And came up with some way of marking content to use their licenses so that stuff can be found automatically .
That 's it .
And now they 've included public domain works as one of their 'licensing templates ' you can mark things as under , although obviously it 's not actually a license in that case .
I do love the way you blame flickr for not having public domain licensing as an option , only CC licensing , but then bitch and whine when CC adds a way to mark things 'public domain ' using their tags , which would have actually solved the problem with flickr from the start if 'public domain ' had been one of the choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...does anyone think it's stupidly bitchy to complain that Creative Commons came up with a 'public domain' tag?
Hey, Charles Eicher, that's because the Creative Common tag is a 'standard' for marking up ownership and licensing of documents.
It's not an attempt to fucking claim ownership, it's a way to mark a document as public domain using an existing nomenclature that now has been expanded to include 'public domain'.
I can only imagine what you think about the Dewey decimal system, a system that has claimed ownership of all human knowledge.
Or, at least, classified it using their nomenclature, which in your book is the same thing.
(Luckily, they also own your book.
)
And, um, Creative Commons isn't attempting to 'expand their licensing authority', as they have no licensing authority to start with.
They wrote a bunch of template licenses for people to use.
And came up with some way of marking content to use their licenses so that stuff can be found automatically.
That's it.
And now they've included public domain works as one of their 'licensing templates' you can mark things as under, although obviously it's not actually a license in that case.
I do love the way you blame flickr for not having public domain licensing as an option, only CC licensing, but then bitch and whine when CC adds a way to mark things 'public domain' using their tags, which would have actually solved the problem with flickr from the start if 'public domain' had been one of the choices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484971</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246039500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "Yea, I'm sure the "stealing movies is okay" crowd here on slashdot really cares about copyright fraud of any kind."</p><p>
I know I'm just feeding trolls but I'll bite.
</p><p>
Do you think it's acceptable for corporations to "steal" public domain works for profit but it's a crime for teenagers to download and watch the latest Hollywood crapbuster? If you're going to be so pious please direct your attacks where their more deserved and use the correct terminology.
</p><p>
To make it clear. A student downloading a copyright work for their own non-commercial non-profit use is not "stealing", it's copyright infringement. There has been no theft of property. The publisher still retains the copy's of the work and the exclusive monopoly to profit from that work, it cannot be argued that the student would have paid to use the work if they had no other choice.</p><p>
On the other hand a publisher claiming fraudulent copyright on a work which that student needs to further their academic carrier could be said to be stealing. Their depriving that student of funds which could be used for other things, rent, food, beer, drugs dvd's, music.
</p><p>
So I ask you which is the greater criminal? The student downloading a dvd to kill a couple of hours or the multinational corporation lining their own pockets at the expense of the consumer.
</p><p>
Of course I have a final solution to the copyright problem. Abolish copyright law! Corporations will be freed to try and profit from public domain and gpl'd works and the consumer can rip them off with impunity, which is pretty much as ridiculous and one sided as the current copyright regime. Which of course has been bought by expensive industry lobbyists.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yea , I 'm sure the " stealing movies is okay " crowd here on slashdot really cares about copyright fraud of any kind .
" I know I 'm just feeding trolls but I 'll bite .
Do you think it 's acceptable for corporations to " steal " public domain works for profit but it 's a crime for teenagers to download and watch the latest Hollywood crapbuster ?
If you 're going to be so pious please direct your attacks where their more deserved and use the correct terminology .
To make it clear .
A student downloading a copyright work for their own non-commercial non-profit use is not " stealing " , it 's copyright infringement .
There has been no theft of property .
The publisher still retains the copy 's of the work and the exclusive monopoly to profit from that work , it can not be argued that the student would have paid to use the work if they had no other choice .
On the other hand a publisher claiming fraudulent copyright on a work which that student needs to further their academic carrier could be said to be stealing .
Their depriving that student of funds which could be used for other things , rent , food , beer , drugs dvd 's , music .
So I ask you which is the greater criminal ?
The student downloading a dvd to kill a couple of hours or the multinational corporation lining their own pockets at the expense of the consumer .
Of course I have a final solution to the copyright problem .
Abolish copyright law !
Corporations will be freed to try and profit from public domain and gpl 'd works and the consumer can rip them off with impunity , which is pretty much as ridiculous and one sided as the current copyright regime .
Which of course has been bought by expensive industry lobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Yea, I'm sure the "stealing movies is okay" crowd here on slashdot really cares about copyright fraud of any kind.
"
I know I'm just feeding trolls but I'll bite.
Do you think it's acceptable for corporations to "steal" public domain works for profit but it's a crime for teenagers to download and watch the latest Hollywood crapbuster?
If you're going to be so pious please direct your attacks where their more deserved and use the correct terminology.
To make it clear.
A student downloading a copyright work for their own non-commercial non-profit use is not "stealing", it's copyright infringement.
There has been no theft of property.
The publisher still retains the copy's of the work and the exclusive monopoly to profit from that work, it cannot be argued that the student would have paid to use the work if they had no other choice.
On the other hand a publisher claiming fraudulent copyright on a work which that student needs to further their academic carrier could be said to be stealing.
Their depriving that student of funds which could be used for other things, rent, food, beer, drugs dvd's, music.
So I ask you which is the greater criminal?
The student downloading a dvd to kill a couple of hours or the multinational corporation lining their own pockets at the expense of the consumer.
Of course I have a final solution to the copyright problem.
Abolish copyright law!
Corporations will be freed to try and profit from public domain and gpl'd works and the consumer can rip them off with impunity, which is pretty much as ridiculous and one sided as the current copyright regime.
Which of course has been bought by expensive industry lobbyists.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484717</id>
	<title>Been there, done that</title>
	<author>spaceyhackerlady</author>
	<datestamp>1246038600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a number of reprints of old books, like <i>The Western Avernus</i>, memoirs of a construction worker on the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was published in 1887, and the copyright has long since expired. The reprint, from 2005, claims
copyright, even though the original author (long since dead) had nothing to do with it, nor,
as far as I can tell, did his estate or descendants.

</p><p>What, exactly, are Cosimo Classics copyrighting?

</p><p>...laura</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a number of reprints of old books , like The Western Avernus , memoirs of a construction worker on the Canadian Pacific Railway .
It was published in 1887 , and the copyright has long since expired .
The reprint , from 2005 , claims copyright , even though the original author ( long since dead ) had nothing to do with it , nor , as far as I can tell , did his estate or descendants .
What , exactly , are Cosimo Classics copyrighting ?
...laura</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a number of reprints of old books, like The Western Avernus, memoirs of a construction worker on the Canadian Pacific Railway.
It was published in 1887, and the copyright has long since expired.
The reprint, from 2005, claims
copyright, even though the original author (long since dead) had nothing to do with it, nor,
as far as I can tell, did his estate or descendants.
What, exactly, are Cosimo Classics copyrighting?
...laura</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488219</id>
	<title>Just get the book at Archive.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246010400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really folks does it take much to find this stuff:</p><p>Glimpses of unfamiliar Japan, Vol 1:</p><p>http://www.archive.org/details/glimpsesofunfami01hearuoft</p><p>and Vol 2:</p><p>http://www.archive.org/details/glimpsesofunfami02hearuoft</p><p>Archive.org scans are generally much better Google scans.</p><p>And if  a book is not available, then instead of complaining that a business is not offering you free services, why not just find the book at a library and scan it and upload to archive. Or make a request to Library of Congress (or another participating library) to scan it, or buy a copy and send to one  of the Archive scan centers. Then everyone will have unmolested access to it.</p><p>And read a little bit about copyright law and issues, before writing a foolish article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really folks does it take much to find this stuff : Glimpses of unfamiliar Japan , Vol 1 : http : //www.archive.org/details/glimpsesofunfami01hearuoftand Vol 2 : http : //www.archive.org/details/glimpsesofunfami02hearuoftArchive.org scans are generally much better Google scans.And if a book is not available , then instead of complaining that a business is not offering you free services , why not just find the book at a library and scan it and upload to archive .
Or make a request to Library of Congress ( or another participating library ) to scan it , or buy a copy and send to one of the Archive scan centers .
Then everyone will have unmolested access to it.And read a little bit about copyright law and issues , before writing a foolish article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really folks does it take much to find this stuff:Glimpses of unfamiliar Japan, Vol 1:http://www.archive.org/details/glimpsesofunfami01hearuoftand Vol 2:http://www.archive.org/details/glimpsesofunfami02hearuoftArchive.org scans are generally much better Google scans.And if  a book is not available, then instead of complaining that a business is not offering you free services, why not just find the book at a library and scan it and upload to archive.
Or make a request to Library of Congress (or another participating library) to scan it, or buy a copy and send to one  of the Archive scan centers.
Then everyone will have unmolested access to it.And read a little bit about copyright law and issues, before writing a foolish article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489549</id>
	<title>Josh Anderson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246017960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to propose a Rebuttal to the absurde and non legally based argument of the author of this article.</p><p>We have a very strong and in depth debate going here where I put forth my argument as to why I believe the author of the article is not a proponent of Public Domain rights but actually an opponent who would limit our rights as well as our benefit from public domain works:</p><p>http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/97577-copyfraud-removing-works-public-domain.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to propose a Rebuttal to the absurde and non legally based argument of the author of this article.We have a very strong and in depth debate going here where I put forth my argument as to why I believe the author of the article is not a proponent of Public Domain rights but actually an opponent who would limit our rights as well as our benefit from public domain works : http : //www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/97577-copyfraud-removing-works-public-domain.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to propose a Rebuttal to the absurde and non legally based argument of the author of this article.We have a very strong and in depth debate going here where I put forth my argument as to why I believe the author of the article is not a proponent of Public Domain rights but actually an opponent who would limit our rights as well as our benefit from public domain works:http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/97577-copyfraud-removing-works-public-domain.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486661</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Keill</author>
	<datestamp>1246046880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>O'neills - online?  oooh...  (Am a fiddle-player).</p><p>And one of Allan's aswell, cool - (my dad has my copy of Allan's Violin Gems atm btw).</p><p>What I prefer to do is get hold of music in Midi format, then run them through with virtual instruments in cubase - (some of Bach's stuff sounds great with the Pipe-organ in EastWest Orchestral (Silver)).</p><p>If you like Irish music you can listen to some of mine - though it's nowhere near finished yet - (need a new computer before I go back and finish it all off/re-write it etc.) - here:  <a href="http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn" title="myspace.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn</a> [myspace.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>O'neills - online ?
oooh... ( Am a fiddle-player ) .And one of Allan 's aswell , cool - ( my dad has my copy of Allan 's Violin Gems atm btw ) .What I prefer to do is get hold of music in Midi format , then run them through with virtual instruments in cubase - ( some of Bach 's stuff sounds great with the Pipe-organ in EastWest Orchestral ( Silver ) ) .If you like Irish music you can listen to some of mine - though it 's nowhere near finished yet - ( need a new computer before I go back and finish it all off/re-write it etc .
) - here : http : //www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn [ myspace.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O'neills - online?
oooh...  (Am a fiddle-player).And one of Allan's aswell, cool - (my dad has my copy of Allan's Violin Gems atm btw).What I prefer to do is get hold of music in Midi format, then run them through with virtual instruments in cubase - (some of Bach's stuff sounds great with the Pipe-organ in EastWest Orchestral (Silver)).If you like Irish music you can listen to some of mine - though it's nowhere near finished yet - (need a new computer before I go back and finish it all off/re-write it etc.
) - here:  http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn [myspace.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484147</id>
	<title>Re:Combating Cyberfraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big problem is that's exactly the repository the CopyFraud groups use to obtain the Public Domain material to slap their Copyright on, and "own" the material through Google etc. until someone puts up a legal suit to remove it as copyright material.  There's no incentive NOT to falsely claim copyright of public domain material.  That's the issue from the articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem is that 's exactly the repository the CopyFraud groups use to obtain the Public Domain material to slap their Copyright on , and " own " the material through Google etc .
until someone puts up a legal suit to remove it as copyright material .
There 's no incentive NOT to falsely claim copyright of public domain material .
That 's the issue from the articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem is that's exactly the repository the CopyFraud groups use to obtain the Public Domain material to slap their Copyright on, and "own" the material through Google etc.
until someone puts up a legal suit to remove it as copyright material.
There's no incentive NOT to falsely claim copyright of public domain material.
That's the issue from the articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486907</id>
	<title>Re:Combating Cyberfraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246048140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The religious side and the non-secular side? What about me?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The religious side and the non-secular side ?
What about me ?
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The religious side and the non-secular side?
What about me?
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485405</id>
	<title>Re:Disney does it with fairy tales</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1246041180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was disappointed that I had to get halfway down the comments before anyone pointed out Disney. They're the reason copyright is as evil as it is today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was disappointed that I had to get halfway down the comments before anyone pointed out Disney .
They 're the reason copyright is as evil as it is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was disappointed that I had to get halfway down the comments before anyone pointed out Disney.
They're the reason copyright is as evil as it is today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484573</id>
	<title>I see a trend here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246038180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The expression of a work is copyrightable, even if the work itself is not copyrighted.  You are always free to use the information and in most cases even the exact text of a public domain work. However the cover and illustrations of the book/text/paper and the arrangement of the symphony are the expression that a new author has added to the work and those expressions are what is copyrighted.  Stop getting hung up on the copying bullshit.  In order for a public domain work to be useful it must be used or expressed in an original fashion or else you have simply repeated the original author without adding anything of value and therefore stood upon the back of giants and trod them under your smelly feet.  Information of a general nature such as that found in digests and almanacs are usually copyrighted works consisting of the arrangement and collection of public domain information.  It is the arrangement that is copyrighted not the information.  So you can have all the public domain information you want and as long as you express it yourself in your own way you do not have to license it.  If you merely copy the original text and expression of a work that has fallen into the public domain and add nothing to it, I feel that you have betrayed the nature of public domain and are producing a useless piece of fluff simply because you are not required to pay anyone anything for the privilege.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The expression of a work is copyrightable , even if the work itself is not copyrighted .
You are always free to use the information and in most cases even the exact text of a public domain work .
However the cover and illustrations of the book/text/paper and the arrangement of the symphony are the expression that a new author has added to the work and those expressions are what is copyrighted .
Stop getting hung up on the copying bullshit .
In order for a public domain work to be useful it must be used or expressed in an original fashion or else you have simply repeated the original author without adding anything of value and therefore stood upon the back of giants and trod them under your smelly feet .
Information of a general nature such as that found in digests and almanacs are usually copyrighted works consisting of the arrangement and collection of public domain information .
It is the arrangement that is copyrighted not the information .
So you can have all the public domain information you want and as long as you express it yourself in your own way you do not have to license it .
If you merely copy the original text and expression of a work that has fallen into the public domain and add nothing to it , I feel that you have betrayed the nature of public domain and are producing a useless piece of fluff simply because you are not required to pay anyone anything for the privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The expression of a work is copyrightable, even if the work itself is not copyrighted.
You are always free to use the information and in most cases even the exact text of a public domain work.
However the cover and illustrations of the book/text/paper and the arrangement of the symphony are the expression that a new author has added to the work and those expressions are what is copyrighted.
Stop getting hung up on the copying bullshit.
In order for a public domain work to be useful it must be used or expressed in an original fashion or else you have simply repeated the original author without adding anything of value and therefore stood upon the back of giants and trod them under your smelly feet.
Information of a general nature such as that found in digests and almanacs are usually copyrighted works consisting of the arrangement and collection of public domain information.
It is the arrangement that is copyrighted not the information.
So you can have all the public domain information you want and as long as you express it yourself in your own way you do not have to license it.
If you merely copy the original text and expression of a work that has fallen into the public domain and add nothing to it, I feel that you have betrayed the nature of public domain and are producing a useless piece of fluff simply because you are not required to pay anyone anything for the privilege.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484033</id>
	<title>Keen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Copyfraud" - I like it. Coining a new term is an offensive maneuver, and offense seems like a better political strategy than the defensive whining we always do on slashdot. Now we just need to start floating ridiculous proposals to counterbalance the copyright lobby's ridiculousness and re-center the discussion on what a reasonable public policy should be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Copyfraud " - I like it .
Coining a new term is an offensive maneuver , and offense seems like a better political strategy than the defensive whining we always do on slashdot .
Now we just need to start floating ridiculous proposals to counterbalance the copyright lobby 's ridiculousness and re-center the discussion on what a reasonable public policy should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Copyfraud" - I like it.
Coining a new term is an offensive maneuver, and offense seems like a better political strategy than the defensive whining we always do on slashdot.
Now we just need to start floating ridiculous proposals to counterbalance the copyright lobby's ridiculousness and re-center the discussion on what a reasonable public policy should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484729</id>
	<title>Confused about Creative Commons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246038660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll ignore the overheated rhetoric about "copyfraud".  I agree that claiming copyright where you do not have a claim is pernicious behavior.  But I think the author goes a little far talking about people *deserving* free access to material.  Everything costs something, even public domain material needs to be printed or otherwise transmitted.  That costs something no matter how small.  Sure, maybe it is subsidized (e.g. public libraries) or maybe your sugar daddy (university) pays for your access, but the cost is still there.</p><p>Other than that quibble, the author also seems to be confused about Creative Commons licensing.  For instance:</p><p>"Creative Commons seeks to become the arbiter of public domain licensing, yet it has no governmental authority and cannot enforce its licenses. Nor is it subject to Congressional oversight like the Copyright Office."</p><p>That makes absolutely no sense.  Creative Commons provides licenses that authors and creators can apply to their work, but the Creative Commons doesn't *claim* any authorship on the works that use the licenses.  That would be like claiming that because you use the GPL or MIT license that the FSF or MIT now somehow has copyright claims to your works.  That is simply not the case.</p><p>Furthermore, the Creative Commons public domain license is meant to provide a means to put something into the public domain while it would normally still be under copyright.  Since everything published now defaults to copyright status, this license is an attempt to place something in the public domain if you don't want to wait multiple lifetimes (or perhaps much, much longer) for it to happen under current law.  (Truthfully, there appears to be some debate as to whether it is even possible to place something into the public domain under US copyright law, but that's a whole other discussion.)  That license is *not* meant to somehow claim authority and license existing works already in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll ignore the overheated rhetoric about " copyfraud " .
I agree that claiming copyright where you do not have a claim is pernicious behavior .
But I think the author goes a little far talking about people * deserving * free access to material .
Everything costs something , even public domain material needs to be printed or otherwise transmitted .
That costs something no matter how small .
Sure , maybe it is subsidized ( e.g .
public libraries ) or maybe your sugar daddy ( university ) pays for your access , but the cost is still there.Other than that quibble , the author also seems to be confused about Creative Commons licensing .
For instance : " Creative Commons seeks to become the arbiter of public domain licensing , yet it has no governmental authority and can not enforce its licenses .
Nor is it subject to Congressional oversight like the Copyright Office .
" That makes absolutely no sense .
Creative Commons provides licenses that authors and creators can apply to their work , but the Creative Commons does n't * claim * any authorship on the works that use the licenses .
That would be like claiming that because you use the GPL or MIT license that the FSF or MIT now somehow has copyright claims to your works .
That is simply not the case.Furthermore , the Creative Commons public domain license is meant to provide a means to put something into the public domain while it would normally still be under copyright .
Since everything published now defaults to copyright status , this license is an attempt to place something in the public domain if you do n't want to wait multiple lifetimes ( or perhaps much , much longer ) for it to happen under current law .
( Truthfully , there appears to be some debate as to whether it is even possible to place something into the public domain under US copyright law , but that 's a whole other discussion .
) That license is * not * meant to somehow claim authority and license existing works already in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll ignore the overheated rhetoric about "copyfraud".
I agree that claiming copyright where you do not have a claim is pernicious behavior.
But I think the author goes a little far talking about people *deserving* free access to material.
Everything costs something, even public domain material needs to be printed or otherwise transmitted.
That costs something no matter how small.
Sure, maybe it is subsidized (e.g.
public libraries) or maybe your sugar daddy (university) pays for your access, but the cost is still there.Other than that quibble, the author also seems to be confused about Creative Commons licensing.
For instance:"Creative Commons seeks to become the arbiter of public domain licensing, yet it has no governmental authority and cannot enforce its licenses.
Nor is it subject to Congressional oversight like the Copyright Office.
"That makes absolutely no sense.
Creative Commons provides licenses that authors and creators can apply to their work, but the Creative Commons doesn't *claim* any authorship on the works that use the licenses.
That would be like claiming that because you use the GPL or MIT license that the FSF or MIT now somehow has copyright claims to your works.
That is simply not the case.Furthermore, the Creative Commons public domain license is meant to provide a means to put something into the public domain while it would normally still be under copyright.
Since everything published now defaults to copyright status, this license is an attempt to place something in the public domain if you don't want to wait multiple lifetimes (or perhaps much, much longer) for it to happen under current law.
(Truthfully, there appears to be some debate as to whether it is even possible to place something into the public domain under US copyright law, but that's a whole other discussion.
)  That license is *not* meant to somehow claim authority and license existing works already in the public domain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486431</id>
	<title>A bit of both, as per usual</title>
	<author>NickFortune</author>
	<datestamp>1246045800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yup. And just as soon as the Slashdot Hive Mind Project comes online we may be able to do that. Until such time,
you'd have an easier job herding the proverbial cats. We're not a political party; we don't do positions.
And if we did, you can bet we'd have slashdotters speaking out against it, faster than you can say "first post!"
</p><blockquote><div><p>If we're against copyrights, then we're also against the GPL</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Umm... no. Abolishing copyright would abolish the legal mechanism enabling the GPL, it is true.
On the other hand, misuse of copyright is largely evil that the GPL was created to remedy.
Opposing copyright abolition on the grounds that it would destroy the GPL is rather like
opposing the eradication of Malaria on the grounds that malaria vaccines save so many lives.
Still, so long as Malaria exists,  malaria vaccines remain a force for
good. Similarly, while copyright remains on the statue books, the GPL likewise remainse
a force for good. YMMV, obviously.
</p><p>
Another way to look at it: The GPL is a lot like buying a slave in order to set him or her free.
Slavery is evil, as I think we'd all agree. On the other hand, given a society in which the law
permits human slavery, it is still possible to find ethical applications for those same laws,
even though the intent of the law runs entirely to the contrary

</p><blockquote><div><p>However, if we're in favor of the GPL, then we must also be in favor of the copyrights governing all the things pirated on P2P networks</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Doesn't follow. You could make a good case for "if we expect companies to respect the GPL then we should respect
the copyrights of others and therefore not share or download material without permissions from the rights holders".
It's just that you didn't actually <i>say</i> that. Call me a pedant if you will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it .
Yup. And just as soon as the Slashdot Hive Mind Project comes online we may be able to do that .
Until such time , you 'd have an easier job herding the proverbial cats .
We 're not a political party ; we do n't do positions .
And if we did , you can bet we 'd have slashdotters speaking out against it , faster than you can say " first post !
" If we 're against copyrights , then we 're also against the GPL Umm... no. Abolishing copyright would abolish the legal mechanism enabling the GPL , it is true .
On the other hand , misuse of copyright is largely evil that the GPL was created to remedy .
Opposing copyright abolition on the grounds that it would destroy the GPL is rather like opposing the eradication of Malaria on the grounds that malaria vaccines save so many lives .
Still , so long as Malaria exists , malaria vaccines remain a force for good .
Similarly , while copyright remains on the statue books , the GPL likewise remainse a force for good .
YMMV , obviously .
Another way to look at it : The GPL is a lot like buying a slave in order to set him or her free .
Slavery is evil , as I think we 'd all agree .
On the other hand , given a society in which the law permits human slavery , it is still possible to find ethical applications for those same laws , even though the intent of the law runs entirely to the contrary However , if we 're in favor of the GPL , then we must also be in favor of the copyrights governing all the things pirated on P2P networks Does n't follow .
You could make a good case for " if we expect companies to respect the GPL then we should respect the copyrights of others and therefore not share or download material without permissions from the rights holders " .
It 's just that you did n't actually say that .
Call me a pedant if you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it.
Yup. And just as soon as the Slashdot Hive Mind Project comes online we may be able to do that.
Until such time,
you'd have an easier job herding the proverbial cats.
We're not a political party; we don't do positions.
And if we did, you can bet we'd have slashdotters speaking out against it, faster than you can say "first post!
"
If we're against copyrights, then we're also against the GPL

Umm... no. Abolishing copyright would abolish the legal mechanism enabling the GPL, it is true.
On the other hand, misuse of copyright is largely evil that the GPL was created to remedy.
Opposing copyright abolition on the grounds that it would destroy the GPL is rather like
opposing the eradication of Malaria on the grounds that malaria vaccines save so many lives.
Still, so long as Malaria exists,  malaria vaccines remain a force for
good.
Similarly, while copyright remains on the statue books, the GPL likewise remainse
a force for good.
YMMV, obviously.
Another way to look at it: The GPL is a lot like buying a slave in order to set him or her free.
Slavery is evil, as I think we'd all agree.
On the other hand, given a society in which the law
permits human slavery, it is still possible to find ethical applications for those same laws,
even though the intent of the law runs entirely to the contrary

However, if we're in favor of the GPL, then we must also be in favor of the copyrights governing all the things pirated on P2P networks

Doesn't follow.
You could make a good case for "if we expect companies to respect the GPL then we should respect
the copyrights of others and therefore not share or download material without permissions from the rights holders".
It's just that you didn't actually say that.
Call me a pedant if you will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488793</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246013280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A photograph of a public domain text is copyrighted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A photograph of a public domain text is copyrighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A photograph of a public domain text is copyrighted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484109</id>
	<title>Copyright is a scam against the people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, do I need to have a body of text here?</p><p>The PRINCIPLE of copyright is sound - encourage the development of artistic creations by giving the artist time to make money from the work.</p><p>It's eroded by corporations who assign copyright of their artists to themselves.</p><p>It's then made a mockery of because the time period of copyright protection is so long it actively harms society and reduces the amount of artistic works made (no financial incentive to make more when they can live off the existing works).</p><p>And now the works of art that are in the public domain are being stolen back from the people.</p><p>This is it. FUCK COPYRIGHT. Until things are fair and equitable, with checks and balances, fair use, protections for creators and users, screw it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , do I need to have a body of text here ? The PRINCIPLE of copyright is sound - encourage the development of artistic creations by giving the artist time to make money from the work.It 's eroded by corporations who assign copyright of their artists to themselves.It 's then made a mockery of because the time period of copyright protection is so long it actively harms society and reduces the amount of artistic works made ( no financial incentive to make more when they can live off the existing works ) .And now the works of art that are in the public domain are being stolen back from the people.This is it .
FUCK COPYRIGHT .
Until things are fair and equitable , with checks and balances , fair use , protections for creators and users , screw it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, do I need to have a body of text here?The PRINCIPLE of copyright is sound - encourage the development of artistic creations by giving the artist time to make money from the work.It's eroded by corporations who assign copyright of their artists to themselves.It's then made a mockery of because the time period of copyright protection is so long it actively harms society and reduces the amount of artistic works made (no financial incentive to make more when they can live off the existing works).And now the works of art that are in the public domain are being stolen back from the people.This is it.
FUCK COPYRIGHT.
Until things are fair and equitable, with checks and balances, fair use, protections for creators and users, screw it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484277</id>
	<title>There's a name for it</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1246037160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free.</i></p><p>This statement is an example of the same sort of "logic" used by the public-domain squatters:  It's technically true, but very misleading.  It doesn't matter if the Copyright Act doesn't provide penalties; there are plenty of other laws that apply.  One thing these companies are guilty of is commonly called "consumer fraud", and large penalties can apply in such cases.</p><p>The real problem is the lack of prosecution, mostly because it typically takes a class-action lawsuit to get enough money behind it to challenge a company's legal budget.  Local DAs tend to take a "not my job" attitude to such things, so it requires organized community action to fight such fraud.</p><p>Maybe what we should be doing is documenting cases of such fraud, and publicizing them when the topic comes up in forums like this one.</p><p>Anyone want to post a list of some of their favorite fraudulent claims of ownership of public-domain material?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials .
There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free.This statement is an example of the same sort of " logic " used by the public-domain squatters : It 's technically true , but very misleading .
It does n't matter if the Copyright Act does n't provide penalties ; there are plenty of other laws that apply .
One thing these companies are guilty of is commonly called " consumer fraud " , and large penalties can apply in such cases.The real problem is the lack of prosecution , mostly because it typically takes a class-action lawsuit to get enough money behind it to challenge a company 's legal budget .
Local DAs tend to take a " not my job " attitude to such things , so it requires organized community action to fight such fraud.Maybe what we should be doing is documenting cases of such fraud , and publicizing them when the topic comes up in forums like this one.Anyone want to post a list of some of their favorite fraudulent claims of ownership of public-domain material ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials.
There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free.This statement is an example of the same sort of "logic" used by the public-domain squatters:  It's technically true, but very misleading.
It doesn't matter if the Copyright Act doesn't provide penalties; there are plenty of other laws that apply.
One thing these companies are guilty of is commonly called "consumer fraud", and large penalties can apply in such cases.The real problem is the lack of prosecution, mostly because it typically takes a class-action lawsuit to get enough money behind it to challenge a company's legal budget.
Local DAs tend to take a "not my job" attitude to such things, so it requires organized community action to fight such fraud.Maybe what we should be doing is documenting cases of such fraud, and publicizing them when the topic comes up in forums like this one.Anyone want to post a list of some of their favorite fraudulent claims of ownership of public-domain material?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863</id>
	<title>Combating Cyberfraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246035540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we need is for someone to create a program, open source of course, where people can create text files of public domain works, submit said works and then those who have the program, can download those works they want and forever have access to them.</p><p>There are programs available on the <a href="http://www.crosswire.org/sword/index.jsp" title="crosswire.org" rel="nofollow">religous side </a> [crosswire.org] for those works which are in the public domain (i.e. early church fathers, bibles, dictionaries, lexicons, etc), but I don't see any for the non-secular side.</p><p>Perhaps if a few started a website and elicited volunteers to help with the code so that the program - lets call it "Free Works", is available for all OS's.  Then students, scholars, professors, and the general public could and would have access without having to pay such outragous fees for something that should be free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is for someone to create a program , open source of course , where people can create text files of public domain works , submit said works and then those who have the program , can download those works they want and forever have access to them.There are programs available on the religous side [ crosswire.org ] for those works which are in the public domain ( i.e .
early church fathers , bibles , dictionaries , lexicons , etc ) , but I do n't see any for the non-secular side.Perhaps if a few started a website and elicited volunteers to help with the code so that the program - lets call it " Free Works " , is available for all OS 's .
Then students , scholars , professors , and the general public could and would have access without having to pay such outragous fees for something that should be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is for someone to create a program, open source of course, where people can create text files of public domain works, submit said works and then those who have the program, can download those works they want and forever have access to them.There are programs available on the religous side  [crosswire.org] for those works which are in the public domain (i.e.
early church fathers, bibles, dictionaries, lexicons, etc), but I don't see any for the non-secular side.Perhaps if a few started a website and elicited volunteers to help with the code so that the program - lets call it "Free Works", is available for all OS's.
Then students, scholars, professors, and the general public could and would have access without having to pay such outragous fees for something that should be free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488437</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1246011180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would make it very unattractive to publish new performances of old classical music. Suppose Deutsche Grammophon hires a quality orchestra to perform a piece from Bach, and records and mixes it with expensive equipment and sound experts, and then publishes the CD. Then Sony copies that CD and releases it under their own label for half the price.</p><p>Would you say that the way in which DGG records it and the quality of the musicians don't add anything of value? Would an amateur orchestra performing the same piece for free be just as good?</p><p>What's important though is that the original sheet music remains availlable and in public domain. It wouldn't do anyone any good if those amateur orchestras had to pay DGG to perform pieces from Bach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would make it very unattractive to publish new performances of old classical music .
Suppose Deutsche Grammophon hires a quality orchestra to perform a piece from Bach , and records and mixes it with expensive equipment and sound experts , and then publishes the CD .
Then Sony copies that CD and releases it under their own label for half the price.Would you say that the way in which DGG records it and the quality of the musicians do n't add anything of value ?
Would an amateur orchestra performing the same piece for free be just as good ? What 's important though is that the original sheet music remains availlable and in public domain .
It would n't do anyone any good if those amateur orchestras had to pay DGG to perform pieces from Bach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would make it very unattractive to publish new performances of old classical music.
Suppose Deutsche Grammophon hires a quality orchestra to perform a piece from Bach, and records and mixes it with expensive equipment and sound experts, and then publishes the CD.
Then Sony copies that CD and releases it under their own label for half the price.Would you say that the way in which DGG records it and the quality of the musicians don't add anything of value?
Would an amateur orchestra performing the same piece for free be just as good?What's important though is that the original sheet music remains availlable and in public domain.
It wouldn't do anyone any good if those amateur orchestras had to pay DGG to perform pieces from Bach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484343</id>
	<title>Civil remedies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246037400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'd probably get farther if we could sue fraudulent companies, rather than prosecute them as criminal cases.  In that way we could have someone like EFF or some watchdog take these guys to court and sue them for damages as well as return of fraudulently obtained earnings due to willful abuse of copyright.  That would hit them where their soft spots are and lower the burden of proof from reasonable doubt to preponderance of evidence, a much harder thing for their lawyers to weasel out of.</p><p>While it would be nice to throw people in jail for this, and that should remain on the books, the fact is that having the state prosecute for this runs into the same problems every time: the state is less interested in prosecuting people who have good lawyers and lots of special interest cash for something that Middle America doesn't really understand all that well and is divided on the implications of.  There's no glory for the prosecutors, and it's expensive for the state when they could be busting somebody that will give them some juicy publicity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'd probably get farther if we could sue fraudulent companies , rather than prosecute them as criminal cases .
In that way we could have someone like EFF or some watchdog take these guys to court and sue them for damages as well as return of fraudulently obtained earnings due to willful abuse of copyright .
That would hit them where their soft spots are and lower the burden of proof from reasonable doubt to preponderance of evidence , a much harder thing for their lawyers to weasel out of.While it would be nice to throw people in jail for this , and that should remain on the books , the fact is that having the state prosecute for this runs into the same problems every time : the state is less interested in prosecuting people who have good lawyers and lots of special interest cash for something that Middle America does n't really understand all that well and is divided on the implications of .
There 's no glory for the prosecutors , and it 's expensive for the state when they could be busting somebody that will give them some juicy publicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'd probably get farther if we could sue fraudulent companies, rather than prosecute them as criminal cases.
In that way we could have someone like EFF or some watchdog take these guys to court and sue them for damages as well as return of fraudulently obtained earnings due to willful abuse of copyright.
That would hit them where their soft spots are and lower the burden of proof from reasonable doubt to preponderance of evidence, a much harder thing for their lawyers to weasel out of.While it would be nice to throw people in jail for this, and that should remain on the books, the fact is that having the state prosecute for this runs into the same problems every time: the state is less interested in prosecuting people who have good lawyers and lots of special interest cash for something that Middle America doesn't really understand all that well and is divided on the implications of.
There's no glory for the prosecutors, and it's expensive for the state when they could be busting somebody that will give them some juicy publicity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485207</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism at it's finest</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1246040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem isn't capitalism, as you say; it's copyright. Copyright is a violation of physical property laws, and has no place in a free market. Some claim that copyright is a natural extension of physical property, but it's not as it lacks scarcity, the fundamental thing that capitalism addresses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't capitalism , as you say ; it 's copyright .
Copyright is a violation of physical property laws , and has no place in a free market .
Some claim that copyright is a natural extension of physical property , but it 's not as it lacks scarcity , the fundamental thing that capitalism addresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't capitalism, as you say; it's copyright.
Copyright is a violation of physical property laws, and has no place in a free market.
Some claim that copyright is a natural extension of physical property, but it's not as it lacks scarcity, the fundamental thing that capitalism addresses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485533</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism at it's finest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246041720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Capitalism doesn't recognize anything that cannot be monetized.</p></div><p>false false false false</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism does n't recognize anything that can not be monetized.false false false false</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism doesn't recognize anything that cannot be monetized.false false false false
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488903</id>
	<title>Tax Intellectual "Property"</title>
	<author>\_greg</author>
	<datestamp>1246013880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If non-defensive Copyrights and Patents are a form of property, then let's tax them.  When the holder no longer expects to make money from them, they can be sold or given back to the public domain.  Heinlein suggested a great way to set property taxes: Let anyone state the taxable value of their property, then that's what it can be purchased for.  See his novel "Number of the Beast" for details.</p><p>\_Greg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If non-defensive Copyrights and Patents are a form of property , then let 's tax them .
When the holder no longer expects to make money from them , they can be sold or given back to the public domain .
Heinlein suggested a great way to set property taxes : Let anyone state the taxable value of their property , then that 's what it can be purchased for .
See his novel " Number of the Beast " for details. \ _Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If non-defensive Copyrights and Patents are a form of property, then let's tax them.
When the holder no longer expects to make money from them, they can be sold or given back to the public domain.
Heinlein suggested a great way to set property taxes: Let anyone state the taxable value of their property, then that's what it can be purchased for.
See his novel "Number of the Beast" for details.\_Greg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490037</id>
	<title>The power to come</title>
	<author>BecuzISaySo</author>
	<datestamp>1246022100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One day, one of the emerging countries (China, India, Brazil) is going to realize how many hurdles are created in innovation and progress due to the greedy nature of the IP laws that US is pushing.

That country is going to rationalize their IP laws and become the world leader in knowledge based economy. Our country will huff and puff due to the idiots running the country and the influence that IP whores have in our capital but won't be able to do much.

May be someone can make a sci-fi novel out of it. I claim copyright on the idea...wait, never mind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>One day , one of the emerging countries ( China , India , Brazil ) is going to realize how many hurdles are created in innovation and progress due to the greedy nature of the IP laws that US is pushing .
That country is going to rationalize their IP laws and become the world leader in knowledge based economy .
Our country will huff and puff due to the idiots running the country and the influence that IP whores have in our capital but wo n't be able to do much .
May be someone can make a sci-fi novel out of it .
I claim copyright on the idea...wait , never mind : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One day, one of the emerging countries (China, India, Brazil) is going to realize how many hurdles are created in innovation and progress due to the greedy nature of the IP laws that US is pushing.
That country is going to rationalize their IP laws and become the world leader in knowledge based economy.
Our country will huff and puff due to the idiots running the country and the influence that IP whores have in our capital but won't be able to do much.
May be someone can make a sci-fi novel out of it.
I claim copyright on the idea...wait, never mind :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484983</id>
	<title>Simple solution...</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1246039560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple solution: <a href="http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm" title="dklevine.com"> <b>abolish copyright.</b> </a> [dklevine.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple solution : abolish copyright .
[ dklevine.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple solution:  abolish copyright.
[dklevine.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485527</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1246041720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I acquired some photographs for a college project about a decade ago from a local historical society.  They were photos of an old, now-removed residential neighborhood, taken in 1917.  (All photographs taken and published in 1917 in the United States are and were in the public domain.)</p><p>Before I was allowed to have a copy of these photos, I had to had to sign a contract that limited my ability to reuse the works.  This effectively replaced copyright as the entity restricting my right to use the works.</p><p>Alas, I really wanted to publish my final project online, but the rights I had to those photos precluded that.  I ended up turning in the project in HTML form on a CD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I acquired some photographs for a college project about a decade ago from a local historical society .
They were photos of an old , now-removed residential neighborhood , taken in 1917 .
( All photographs taken and published in 1917 in the United States are and were in the public domain .
) Before I was allowed to have a copy of these photos , I had to had to sign a contract that limited my ability to reuse the works .
This effectively replaced copyright as the entity restricting my right to use the works.Alas , I really wanted to publish my final project online , but the rights I had to those photos precluded that .
I ended up turning in the project in HTML form on a CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I acquired some photographs for a college project about a decade ago from a local historical society.
They were photos of an old, now-removed residential neighborhood, taken in 1917.
(All photographs taken and published in 1917 in the United States are and were in the public domain.
)Before I was allowed to have a copy of these photos, I had to had to sign a contract that limited my ability to reuse the works.
This effectively replaced copyright as the entity restricting my right to use the works.Alas, I really wanted to publish my final project online, but the rights I had to those photos precluded that.
I ended up turning in the project in HTML form on a CD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484005</id>
	<title>permission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has the <i>New York University Law Review</i> granted him permission to distribute that paper? : p</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has the New York University Law Review granted him permission to distribute that paper ?
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has the New York University Law Review granted him permission to distribute that paper?
: p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485213</id>
	<title>Re:Combating Cyberfraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are programs available on the religous side<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I don't see any for the non-secular side.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I thought the religious side <i>was</i> the non-secular side..?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are programs available on the religous side ... but I do n't see any for the non-secular side .
I thought the religious side was the non-secular side.. ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are programs available on the religous side ... but I don't see any for the non-secular side.
I thought the religious side was the non-secular side..?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181</id>
	<title>Hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, I'm sure the "stealing movies is okay" crowd here on slashdot really cares about copyright fraud of any kind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , I 'm sure the " stealing movies is okay " crowd here on slashdot really cares about copyright fraud of any kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, I'm sure the "stealing movies is okay" crowd here on slashdot really cares about copyright fraud of any kind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485663</id>
	<title>Re:There's a name for it</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1246042260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Happy Birthday" is the most famous, it was even mentioned during Eldred vs. Ashcroft.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy\_birthday" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy\_birthday</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
Sometimes it takes a specific law to get "The Powers that Be" off their collective arses and take action.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Happy Birthday " is the most famous , it was even mentioned during Eldred vs. Ashcroft. http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy \ _birthday [ wikipedia.org ] Sometimes it takes a specific law to get " The Powers that Be " off their collective arses and take action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Happy Birthday" is the most famous, it was even mentioned during Eldred vs. Ashcroft.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy\_birthday [wikipedia.org]
 
Sometimes it takes a specific law to get "The Powers that Be" off their collective arses and take action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484055</id>
	<title>conquer copyfraud with you willy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>imagine you willy being smacked until it bleeds</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>imagine you willy being smacked until it bleeds</tokentext>
<sentencetext>imagine you willy being smacked until it bleeds</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489537</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246017840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Editing and typesetting should not make a new copyright. It adds no useful art, unless it make massive changes to the original. If it is just to make the original clear why the heck should they get any copyright on it?</p></div><p>The problem with the law is specifying differences in a meaningful way. There's making the original clear: different font / repagination. And there's making the original clear: scanning velum for obliterated texts under later texts and transliterating/translating into modern scripts/language.</p><p>These are vastly different undertakings. The former can be 1 minute choosing a new font. The later can be many years poring over high resolution scans using novel scanning techniques and textual analysis to interpret the most likely letter in a given position, etc.. The later situation should be rewarded in some way, the breadth of historical knowledge has been re-enlarged. The former is laughably trivial. Both are "making the original clear".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Editing and typesetting should not make a new copyright .
It adds no useful art , unless it make massive changes to the original .
If it is just to make the original clear why the heck should they get any copyright on it ? The problem with the law is specifying differences in a meaningful way .
There 's making the original clear : different font / repagination .
And there 's making the original clear : scanning velum for obliterated texts under later texts and transliterating/translating into modern scripts/language.These are vastly different undertakings .
The former can be 1 minute choosing a new font .
The later can be many years poring over high resolution scans using novel scanning techniques and textual analysis to interpret the most likely letter in a given position , etc.. The later situation should be rewarded in some way , the breadth of historical knowledge has been re-enlarged .
The former is laughably trivial .
Both are " making the original clear " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editing and typesetting should not make a new copyright.
It adds no useful art, unless it make massive changes to the original.
If it is just to make the original clear why the heck should they get any copyright on it?The problem with the law is specifying differences in a meaningful way.
There's making the original clear: different font / repagination.
And there's making the original clear: scanning velum for obliterated texts under later texts and transliterating/translating into modern scripts/language.These are vastly different undertakings.
The former can be 1 minute choosing a new font.
The later can be many years poring over high resolution scans using novel scanning techniques and textual analysis to interpret the most likely letter in a given position, etc.. The later situation should be rewarded in some way, the breadth of historical knowledge has been re-enlarged.
The former is laughably trivial.
Both are "making the original clear".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485449</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrites</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1246041360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is so cute coming from an AC. Would you like a vi/emacs debate with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is so cute coming from an AC .
Would you like a vi/emacs debate with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is so cute coming from an AC.
Would you like a vi/emacs debate with that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485761</id>
	<title>Re:Combating Cyberfraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246042620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>works are directly taken from the public domain and effectively<b> stolen by a single company</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>It would have been nice if the summary had <i>named this "single company"</i>.  Apparenly, if I read the article correctly, they are called "Kessinger Publishing".</p><p>Bringing public attention to corporate misdeeds is a very effective way to encourage better behavior on their part.  Here's some possibly useful information:</p><p>Kessinger Publishing<br>PO Box 1404, Whitefish, MT 59937, United States<br>(605)892-0560, (605)892-0561 fax, <a href="http://www.kessinger.net/" title="kessinger.net">http://www.kessinger.net/</a> [kessinger.net]</p><p>Kessinger Publishing appears to be a privately held corporation and I didn't find any names of owners or management.  I'm betting someone with Lexis access could find that info.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>works are directly taken from the public domain and effectively stolen by a single company It would have been nice if the summary had named this " single company " .
Apparenly , if I read the article correctly , they are called " Kessinger Publishing " .Bringing public attention to corporate misdeeds is a very effective way to encourage better behavior on their part .
Here 's some possibly useful information : Kessinger PublishingPO Box 1404 , Whitefish , MT 59937 , United States ( 605 ) 892-0560 , ( 605 ) 892-0561 fax , http : //www.kessinger.net/ [ kessinger.net ] Kessinger Publishing appears to be a privately held corporation and I did n't find any names of owners or management .
I 'm betting someone with Lexis access could find that info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>works are directly taken from the public domain and effectively stolen by a single company It would have been nice if the summary had named this "single company".
Apparenly, if I read the article correctly, they are called "Kessinger Publishing".Bringing public attention to corporate misdeeds is a very effective way to encourage better behavior on their part.
Here's some possibly useful information:Kessinger PublishingPO Box 1404, Whitefish, MT 59937, United States(605)892-0560, (605)892-0561 fax, http://www.kessinger.net/ [kessinger.net]Kessinger Publishing appears to be a privately held corporation and I didn't find any names of owners or management.
I'm betting someone with Lexis access could find that info.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490003</id>
	<title>Re:Combating Cyberfraud</title>
	<author>celtic\_hackr</author>
	<datestamp>1246021740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Be careful there. Works that are public domain can be reprinted, and the typos fixed (iffy), or an index added or a new forward, etc. and voia! It is now copyrightable again, but, the old material is still public domain, not the whole work. The problem is the world is full of uninformed and uninterested sheep, who believe anything that is printed or broadcast. Now, if the "copyfraud" people are simply reprinting the original books with no change and claiming copyright, then that would be fraud. Last, I checked, if they are selling more than $500 dollars worth, then that's a felony, and in all but one state, private citizens have the right to citizen's arrest.<br> <br>
So the answer to the problem is two-fold.<br>
1) Educate the people,<br>
2) find the people doing the fraud and get a police officer to come with you as you make a citizen's arrest, unless you can get the officer to do it.
<br> <br>
Of course this means actually leaving the computer and doing something about it.
<br> <br>
Alternatively you can simply laugh at the copyfraud people, or publish your own version of it with the disclaimer it is a public domain work. I don't know how much these works are being charged, but, I've seen plenty of public domain works reprinted and sold. Sometimes, the prices are reasonable (i.e. enough to cover the cost of printing and distribution, and other times the prices are astronomical. Hence the term "buyer beware". Sometimes a collector's type of book is printed, and a premium charged for this. I see nothing wrong in reprinting Sherlock Holmes in a fancy, glorious cover and charging for it at a reasonable profitable price. I think great PD material should continue to be republished, in many formats. I think it is also reasonable to profit from doing so. While these copyfraudsters, if indeed they are, are certainly despicable. Just because they pretend to take something out of PD and copyright it, doesn't stop anyone else from publishing it also. PD works can't really be taken out of PD by fraudulently claiming copyright on them.
<br> <br>
I'd love to see a case where one of these fraudsters tried to enforce the copyright on such works. That'd open them up for a whole can of legal hurt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be careful there .
Works that are public domain can be reprinted , and the typos fixed ( iffy ) , or an index added or a new forward , etc .
and voia !
It is now copyrightable again , but , the old material is still public domain , not the whole work .
The problem is the world is full of uninformed and uninterested sheep , who believe anything that is printed or broadcast .
Now , if the " copyfraud " people are simply reprinting the original books with no change and claiming copyright , then that would be fraud .
Last , I checked , if they are selling more than $ 500 dollars worth , then that 's a felony , and in all but one state , private citizens have the right to citizen 's arrest .
So the answer to the problem is two-fold .
1 ) Educate the people , 2 ) find the people doing the fraud and get a police officer to come with you as you make a citizen 's arrest , unless you can get the officer to do it .
Of course this means actually leaving the computer and doing something about it .
Alternatively you can simply laugh at the copyfraud people , or publish your own version of it with the disclaimer it is a public domain work .
I do n't know how much these works are being charged , but , I 've seen plenty of public domain works reprinted and sold .
Sometimes , the prices are reasonable ( i.e .
enough to cover the cost of printing and distribution , and other times the prices are astronomical .
Hence the term " buyer beware " .
Sometimes a collector 's type of book is printed , and a premium charged for this .
I see nothing wrong in reprinting Sherlock Holmes in a fancy , glorious cover and charging for it at a reasonable profitable price .
I think great PD material should continue to be republished , in many formats .
I think it is also reasonable to profit from doing so .
While these copyfraudsters , if indeed they are , are certainly despicable .
Just because they pretend to take something out of PD and copyright it , does n't stop anyone else from publishing it also .
PD works ca n't really be taken out of PD by fraudulently claiming copyright on them .
I 'd love to see a case where one of these fraudsters tried to enforce the copyright on such works .
That 'd open them up for a whole can of legal hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be careful there.
Works that are public domain can be reprinted, and the typos fixed (iffy), or an index added or a new forward, etc.
and voia!
It is now copyrightable again, but, the old material is still public domain, not the whole work.
The problem is the world is full of uninformed and uninterested sheep, who believe anything that is printed or broadcast.
Now, if the "copyfraud" people are simply reprinting the original books with no change and claiming copyright, then that would be fraud.
Last, I checked, if they are selling more than $500 dollars worth, then that's a felony, and in all but one state, private citizens have the right to citizen's arrest.
So the answer to the problem is two-fold.
1) Educate the people,
2) find the people doing the fraud and get a police officer to come with you as you make a citizen's arrest, unless you can get the officer to do it.
Of course this means actually leaving the computer and doing something about it.
Alternatively you can simply laugh at the copyfraud people, or publish your own version of it with the disclaimer it is a public domain work.
I don't know how much these works are being charged, but, I've seen plenty of public domain works reprinted and sold.
Sometimes, the prices are reasonable (i.e.
enough to cover the cost of printing and distribution, and other times the prices are astronomical.
Hence the term "buyer beware".
Sometimes a collector's type of book is printed, and a premium charged for this.
I see nothing wrong in reprinting Sherlock Holmes in a fancy, glorious cover and charging for it at a reasonable profitable price.
I think great PD material should continue to be republished, in many formats.
I think it is also reasonable to profit from doing so.
While these copyfraudsters, if indeed they are, are certainly despicable.
Just because they pretend to take something out of PD and copyright it, doesn't stop anyone else from publishing it also.
PD works can't really be taken out of PD by fraudulently claiming copyright on them.
I'd love to see a case where one of these fraudsters tried to enforce the copyright on such works.
That'd open them up for a whole can of legal hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727</id>
	<title>I see no issue here.</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1246038660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can bottle rain water and sell it to stupid people.  I can take communication bandwidth which costs me nothing extra and charge people every time they send a single text message over it.  I can make something people can make themselves and charge 10 times the value of the components.  I can send spam to millions of people and let them send me money.  If people don't take the time to evaluate their purchases, capitalism dies.  We should be encouraging people not to buy junk that falls apart, so the companies go out of business.  If they pay for Linux but can get it for free, should Red Hat go out of business?</p><p>I know, Red Hat is only putting a copyright on their additions, but how do we make this distinction clear from whatever else this whining is about?</p><p>Someone who takes an out of copyright text and prints it has provided a service and deserves to be paid for it.  If they make any additions to the text, such as editorializing or checking or whatever, the updates are now copyright of the people who printed it.  I can take an original Beethoven score and reproduce it, but if I take an editorialized edition produced 10 years ago, I can't distribute that for free because of the value added by the publisher.  In most cases, origianl scores are written in old-style notation and must be updated to make sense to today's musicians, and that conversion is a new, protected work.</p><p>So the real complaint is the narrow bunch of stuff which is being reproduced, verbatim, with a copyright attached.  And the real concern isn't even that businesses are making money - it's simply that copyright is being asserted.  Yes?</p><p>My understanding is that even if you take something in the public domain, your arrangement of it can be copyrighted.</p><p>For example, a phone book.  The data itself cannot be copyrighted.  The presentation can.  If you stick it in a photocopier and sell the copies, that's a problem.  They give the phone book away, so giving away a copy is technically illegal but probably won't be enforced.  If you re-type everything and get the company logos from the companies and effectively reproduce it so it looks nearly enough the same, you could get sued for copying the presentation - not the contents.</p><p>In this case of Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan, where the book is essentially scans of another book, there are parts of the book which are copyrighted.  The cover is, any forward or editorial material is, notes included.  Anything that was added is copyrighted, and copyright law has only one way of distinguishing that.  You put the copyright notice on it like you do anything else.  Would you rather make an author call out which parts of the book are covered and are not?  On every page?</p><p>Put another way, a derivative work of something in copyright is not allowed.  A derivative work of something out of copyright is essentially a new work.  You can still go back to the source and copy it for free - that hasn't been changed.</p><p>So the complaint is really just about the fact that people *might not* understand how copyright law works, and *might* pay money to a company that makes it easily accessible instead of rummaging around trying to find the original.  I see no problem here.  People need to know how laws work in order to live other parts of their lives, so let's just consider this a place where people need to understand exactly what copyright means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can bottle rain water and sell it to stupid people .
I can take communication bandwidth which costs me nothing extra and charge people every time they send a single text message over it .
I can make something people can make themselves and charge 10 times the value of the components .
I can send spam to millions of people and let them send me money .
If people do n't take the time to evaluate their purchases , capitalism dies .
We should be encouraging people not to buy junk that falls apart , so the companies go out of business .
If they pay for Linux but can get it for free , should Red Hat go out of business ? I know , Red Hat is only putting a copyright on their additions , but how do we make this distinction clear from whatever else this whining is about ? Someone who takes an out of copyright text and prints it has provided a service and deserves to be paid for it .
If they make any additions to the text , such as editorializing or checking or whatever , the updates are now copyright of the people who printed it .
I can take an original Beethoven score and reproduce it , but if I take an editorialized edition produced 10 years ago , I ca n't distribute that for free because of the value added by the publisher .
In most cases , origianl scores are written in old-style notation and must be updated to make sense to today 's musicians , and that conversion is a new , protected work.So the real complaint is the narrow bunch of stuff which is being reproduced , verbatim , with a copyright attached .
And the real concern is n't even that businesses are making money - it 's simply that copyright is being asserted .
Yes ? My understanding is that even if you take something in the public domain , your arrangement of it can be copyrighted.For example , a phone book .
The data itself can not be copyrighted .
The presentation can .
If you stick it in a photocopier and sell the copies , that 's a problem .
They give the phone book away , so giving away a copy is technically illegal but probably wo n't be enforced .
If you re-type everything and get the company logos from the companies and effectively reproduce it so it looks nearly enough the same , you could get sued for copying the presentation - not the contents.In this case of Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan , where the book is essentially scans of another book , there are parts of the book which are copyrighted .
The cover is , any forward or editorial material is , notes included .
Anything that was added is copyrighted , and copyright law has only one way of distinguishing that .
You put the copyright notice on it like you do anything else .
Would you rather make an author call out which parts of the book are covered and are not ?
On every page ? Put another way , a derivative work of something in copyright is not allowed .
A derivative work of something out of copyright is essentially a new work .
You can still go back to the source and copy it for free - that has n't been changed.So the complaint is really just about the fact that people * might not * understand how copyright law works , and * might * pay money to a company that makes it easily accessible instead of rummaging around trying to find the original .
I see no problem here .
People need to know how laws work in order to live other parts of their lives , so let 's just consider this a place where people need to understand exactly what copyright means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can bottle rain water and sell it to stupid people.
I can take communication bandwidth which costs me nothing extra and charge people every time they send a single text message over it.
I can make something people can make themselves and charge 10 times the value of the components.
I can send spam to millions of people and let them send me money.
If people don't take the time to evaluate their purchases, capitalism dies.
We should be encouraging people not to buy junk that falls apart, so the companies go out of business.
If they pay for Linux but can get it for free, should Red Hat go out of business?I know, Red Hat is only putting a copyright on their additions, but how do we make this distinction clear from whatever else this whining is about?Someone who takes an out of copyright text and prints it has provided a service and deserves to be paid for it.
If they make any additions to the text, such as editorializing or checking or whatever, the updates are now copyright of the people who printed it.
I can take an original Beethoven score and reproduce it, but if I take an editorialized edition produced 10 years ago, I can't distribute that for free because of the value added by the publisher.
In most cases, origianl scores are written in old-style notation and must be updated to make sense to today's musicians, and that conversion is a new, protected work.So the real complaint is the narrow bunch of stuff which is being reproduced, verbatim, with a copyright attached.
And the real concern isn't even that businesses are making money - it's simply that copyright is being asserted.
Yes?My understanding is that even if you take something in the public domain, your arrangement of it can be copyrighted.For example, a phone book.
The data itself cannot be copyrighted.
The presentation can.
If you stick it in a photocopier and sell the copies, that's a problem.
They give the phone book away, so giving away a copy is technically illegal but probably won't be enforced.
If you re-type everything and get the company logos from the companies and effectively reproduce it so it looks nearly enough the same, you could get sued for copying the presentation - not the contents.In this case of Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan, where the book is essentially scans of another book, there are parts of the book which are copyrighted.
The cover is, any forward or editorial material is, notes included.
Anything that was added is copyrighted, and copyright law has only one way of distinguishing that.
You put the copyright notice on it like you do anything else.
Would you rather make an author call out which parts of the book are covered and are not?
On every page?Put another way, a derivative work of something in copyright is not allowed.
A derivative work of something out of copyright is essentially a new work.
You can still go back to the source and copy it for free - that hasn't been changed.So the complaint is really just about the fact that people *might not* understand how copyright law works, and *might* pay money to a company that makes it easily accessible instead of rummaging around trying to find the original.
I see no problem here.
People need to know how laws work in order to live other parts of their lives, so let's just consider this a place where people need to understand exactly what copyright means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484585</id>
	<title>How 'bout PD\_DRM?</title>
	<author>OhMickey</author>
	<datestamp>1246038240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. I'm implying OpenSourced DRM attached to PD works.
We the public take this to be our license to use the work.. and wold be thieves to stay way from it.  If they disable/circumvent the DRM. then they're prosecuted by *IAA like anyone else. 
Too early?</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. I 'm implying OpenSourced DRM attached to PD works .
We the public take this to be our license to use the work.. and wold be thieves to stay way from it .
If they disable/circumvent the DRM .
then they 're prosecuted by * IAA like anyone else .
Too early ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. I'm implying OpenSourced DRM attached to PD works.
We the public take this to be our license to use the work.. and wold be thieves to stay way from it.
If they disable/circumvent the DRM.
then they're prosecuted by *IAA like anyone else.
Too early?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483957</id>
	<title>Re:Combating Cyberfraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246035840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What we need is for someone to create a program, open source of course, where people can create text files of public domain works, submit said works and then those who have the program, can download those works they want and forever have access to them.</p></div><p>Too bad <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main\_Page" title="gutenberg.org" rel="nofollow">no one's ever thought of that</a> [gutenberg.org].</p><p>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is for someone to create a program , open source of course , where people can create text files of public domain works , submit said works and then those who have the program , can download those works they want and forever have access to them.Too bad no one 's ever thought of that [ gutenberg.org ] . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is for someone to create a program, open source of course, where people can create text files of public domain works, submit said works and then those who have the program, can download those works they want and forever have access to them.Too bad no one's ever thought of that [gutenberg.org]..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487109</id>
	<title>Re:Keen</title>
	<author>realcoolguy425</author>
	<datestamp>1246049100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now we just need to start floating ridiculous proposals to counterbalance the copyright lobby's ridiculousness and re-center the discussion on what a reasonable public policy should be.</p></div><p>I know, how about all intelectual property is now public domain, until the company that owns it can prove it does own it in a special copyright court.  Cases heard per year: 57<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)   Waiting period: 621 years.

Alright I'll stop being clinical about it.  The loop where business takes off because of extra-ordinary protections via copyright law, said business donates to politicians to increase the viability of their business model needs to stop.  Not because the business is viable, but because the business becomes successful at the expense of public domain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we just need to start floating ridiculous proposals to counterbalance the copyright lobby 's ridiculousness and re-center the discussion on what a reasonable public policy should be.I know , how about all intelectual property is now public domain , until the company that owns it can prove it does own it in a special copyright court .
Cases heard per year : 57 : ) Waiting period : 621 years .
Alright I 'll stop being clinical about it .
The loop where business takes off because of extra-ordinary protections via copyright law , said business donates to politicians to increase the viability of their business model needs to stop .
Not because the business is viable , but because the business becomes successful at the expense of public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we just need to start floating ridiculous proposals to counterbalance the copyright lobby's ridiculousness and re-center the discussion on what a reasonable public policy should be.I know, how about all intelectual property is now public domain, until the company that owns it can prove it does own it in a special copyright court.
Cases heard per year: 57 :)   Waiting period: 621 years.
Alright I'll stop being clinical about it.
The loop where business takes off because of extra-ordinary protections via copyright law, said business donates to politicians to increase the viability of their business model needs to stop.
Not because the business is viable, but because the business becomes successful at the expense of public domain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488239</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1246010460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The claimed copyright is probably valid, but it applies to <b>that printed edition</b> of the work.</p></div><p>The <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=787244#PaperDownload" title="ssrn.com">study</a> [ssrn.com] points out very effectively that copyright applies only to <i>original</i> works.  So no, a copyright does not apply to "the printed edition" if what is printed is already in the public domain.</p><p>The public domain is a room with a one-way door.  Once something's in the public domain, it's, well, <i>public</i>.</p><p>Course, that doesn't stop publishers from claiming they have the copyright, and even collecting fees.  But legally, they have no right to do so.</p><p>And, as the study points out, there really is no legal recourse.  Only the government can bring a case of copyright fraud.  Private citizens have no standing in this instance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The claimed copyright is probably valid , but it applies to that printed edition of the work.The study [ ssrn.com ] points out very effectively that copyright applies only to original works .
So no , a copyright does not apply to " the printed edition " if what is printed is already in the public domain.The public domain is a room with a one-way door .
Once something 's in the public domain , it 's , well , public.Course , that does n't stop publishers from claiming they have the copyright , and even collecting fees .
But legally , they have no right to do so.And , as the study points out , there really is no legal recourse .
Only the government can bring a case of copyright fraud .
Private citizens have no standing in this instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claimed copyright is probably valid, but it applies to that printed edition of the work.The study [ssrn.com] points out very effectively that copyright applies only to original works.
So no, a copyright does not apply to "the printed edition" if what is printed is already in the public domain.The public domain is a room with a one-way door.
Once something's in the public domain, it's, well, public.Course, that doesn't stop publishers from claiming they have the copyright, and even collecting fees.
But legally, they have no right to do so.And, as the study points out, there really is no legal recourse.
Only the government can bring a case of copyright fraud.
Private citizens have no standing in this instance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484891</id>
	<title>Copyright itself is theft of the public domain</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1246039200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I own some raw material and craft an object out of it, I own that object. I own it not because I created the object, but because I owned the raw material it was made from. If someone else takes some of my raw material without my permission and crafts an object, I <i>still</i> own the resulting object, for the same reason: the act of creation using my material doesn't change ownership.

</p><p>If we accept the premise that intellectual works are property like any other, then we must recognize that virtually all works are made primarily of intellectual property owned by the public ("public domain"), and are thus still owned by the public. To claim ownership, as opposed to mere authorship, is outright fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I own some raw material and craft an object out of it , I own that object .
I own it not because I created the object , but because I owned the raw material it was made from .
If someone else takes some of my raw material without my permission and crafts an object , I still own the resulting object , for the same reason : the act of creation using my material does n't change ownership .
If we accept the premise that intellectual works are property like any other , then we must recognize that virtually all works are made primarily of intellectual property owned by the public ( " public domain " ) , and are thus still owned by the public .
To claim ownership , as opposed to mere authorship , is outright fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I own some raw material and craft an object out of it, I own that object.
I own it not because I created the object, but because I owned the raw material it was made from.
If someone else takes some of my raw material without my permission and crafts an object, I still own the resulting object, for the same reason: the act of creation using my material doesn't change ownership.
If we accept the premise that intellectual works are property like any other, then we must recognize that virtually all works are made primarily of intellectual property owned by the public ("public domain"), and are thus still owned by the public.
To claim ownership, as opposed to mere authorship, is outright fraud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484923</id>
	<title>GPL and other open source licenses</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1246039320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would appear to be the primary motivation not only for the GPL, but for other open source licenses as well (ex BSD).</p><p>Were source code put directly into the public domain, not only companies use the source code without contributing their changes back to the community (which the BSD license does allow), they would be allowed to appropriate the source code and stamp their own copyright on it (copyfraud it, which even BSD-style licenses explicitly forbid).   Not only could they sue anybody else that used that source code, but potentially the original author of that code as well.</p><p>I guess open source and GPL authors could see copyfraud coming a mile away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would appear to be the primary motivation not only for the GPL , but for other open source licenses as well ( ex BSD ) .Were source code put directly into the public domain , not only companies use the source code without contributing their changes back to the community ( which the BSD license does allow ) , they would be allowed to appropriate the source code and stamp their own copyright on it ( copyfraud it , which even BSD-style licenses explicitly forbid ) .
Not only could they sue anybody else that used that source code , but potentially the original author of that code as well.I guess open source and GPL authors could see copyfraud coming a mile away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would appear to be the primary motivation not only for the GPL, but for other open source licenses as well (ex BSD).Were source code put directly into the public domain, not only companies use the source code without contributing their changes back to the community (which the BSD license does allow), they would be allowed to appropriate the source code and stamp their own copyright on it (copyfraud it, which even BSD-style licenses explicitly forbid).
Not only could they sue anybody else that used that source code, but potentially the original author of that code as well.I guess open source and GPL authors could see copyfraud coming a mile away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484349</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246037400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the "stealing movies is okay" crowd here on slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>
Straw man arguments are lies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the " stealing movies is okay " crowd here on slashdot Straw man arguments are lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the "stealing movies is okay" crowd here on slashdot
Straw man arguments are lies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485189</id>
	<title>Re:Disney does it with fairy tales</title>
	<author>techno-vampire</author>
	<datestamp>1246040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Then Disney takes them and rewrites them slightly to have a Disney twist. Then Disney copyrights them.</i> <p>
Not so.  What Disney copyrights is the animated features they create retelling those stories, and they also trademark the appearance of the characters in the features.  Anybody can make their own version as long as they don't use the same script, the same images or borrow any incidents Disney created for their version.  If your claim were correct, Disney couldn't have made (as an example) <i>Alice In Wonderland,</i> because MGM had done a live-action version that was still in copyright at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Disney takes them and rewrites them slightly to have a Disney twist .
Then Disney copyrights them .
Not so .
What Disney copyrights is the animated features they create retelling those stories , and they also trademark the appearance of the characters in the features .
Anybody can make their own version as long as they do n't use the same script , the same images or borrow any incidents Disney created for their version .
If your claim were correct , Disney could n't have made ( as an example ) Alice In Wonderland , because MGM had done a live-action version that was still in copyright at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then Disney takes them and rewrites them slightly to have a Disney twist.
Then Disney copyrights them.
Not so.
What Disney copyrights is the animated features they create retelling those stories, and they also trademark the appearance of the characters in the features.
Anybody can make their own version as long as they don't use the same script, the same images or borrow any incidents Disney created for their version.
If your claim were correct, Disney couldn't have made (as an example) Alice In Wonderland, because MGM had done a live-action version that was still in copyright at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486761</id>
	<title>Re:Disney does it with fairy tales</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1246047480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is fine. But this story is about companies claiming copyright over the original stories, the public domain ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is fine .
But this story is about companies claiming copyright over the original stories , the public domain ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is fine.
But this story is about companies claiming copyright over the original stories, the public domain ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490123</id>
	<title>Re:I see no issue here.</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246023000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If you re-type everything and get the company logos from the companies and effectively reproduce it so it looks nearly enough the same, you could get sued for copying the presentation - not the contents.</p></div><p>What you're saying is that if I listen to a song on the radio and write out the music I can't be sued for copying the song<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Did you copy it? Does the work you copied from have any originality in design, ie it's not just a list, you can be sued [I means successfully]. If your presentation differs then it's still a derivative work. If you get that same information by other means, ie you didn't copy it, then you're free to sell it but you may need to prove you got the information elsewise in order to stop yourself being sued.</p><p>Oh, and in the UK we have database rights that stop you copying large data sets that [may have] involved substantial work in their compilation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you re-type everything and get the company logos from the companies and effectively reproduce it so it looks nearly enough the same , you could get sued for copying the presentation - not the contents.What you 're saying is that if I listen to a song on the radio and write out the music I ca n't be sued for copying the song ...Did you copy it ?
Does the work you copied from have any originality in design , ie it 's not just a list , you can be sued [ I means successfully ] .
If your presentation differs then it 's still a derivative work .
If you get that same information by other means , ie you did n't copy it , then you 're free to sell it but you may need to prove you got the information elsewise in order to stop yourself being sued.Oh , and in the UK we have database rights that stop you copying large data sets that [ may have ] involved substantial work in their compilation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you re-type everything and get the company logos from the companies and effectively reproduce it so it looks nearly enough the same, you could get sued for copying the presentation - not the contents.What you're saying is that if I listen to a song on the radio and write out the music I can't be sued for copying the song ...Did you copy it?
Does the work you copied from have any originality in design, ie it's not just a list, you can be sued [I means successfully].
If your presentation differs then it's still a derivative work.
If you get that same information by other means, ie you didn't copy it, then you're free to sell it but you may need to prove you got the information elsewise in order to stop yourself being sued.Oh, and in the UK we have database rights that stop you copying large data sets that [may have] involved substantial work in their compilation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489485</id>
	<title>Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today?</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1246017360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would help you to understand Slashdot, and other organizations, to remember that the organization is a fiction.  The actual statements are coming from, and actions are taken by, various individuals.</p><p>Collective names, like Slashdot, are purely a stylistic convenience.  Call it syntactical sugar.  Only a very few individuals have any actual right to speak for the collective entity...and they VERY rarely do.  Usually the spokesman is either self-appointed, or someone who can be denounced as "Not really representing our organization".  (Remember, I'm NOT just talking about Slashdot.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would help you to understand Slashdot , and other organizations , to remember that the organization is a fiction .
The actual statements are coming from , and actions are taken by , various individuals.Collective names , like Slashdot , are purely a stylistic convenience .
Call it syntactical sugar .
Only a very few individuals have any actual right to speak for the collective entity...and they VERY rarely do .
Usually the spokesman is either self-appointed , or someone who can be denounced as " Not really representing our organization " .
( Remember , I 'm NOT just talking about Slashdot .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would help you to understand Slashdot, and other organizations, to remember that the organization is a fiction.
The actual statements are coming from, and actions are taken by, various individuals.Collective names, like Slashdot, are purely a stylistic convenience.
Call it syntactical sugar.
Only a very few individuals have any actual right to speak for the collective entity...and they VERY rarely do.
Usually the spokesman is either self-appointed, or someone who can be denounced as "Not really representing our organization".
(Remember, I'm NOT just talking about Slashdot.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485165</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1246040280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I am planning on releasing a lot of digital images I made to the public domain. For free. And if someone takes those and enhances them in any way or uses them to make their own art (like sampling in the music industry) they are free to make their own choice about which copyright to use.
</i></p><p><i>
If this enhancement process only means a bot will download them and rename them to sell them on a different website then I will have to live with that.</i> </p><p>Will you live with having someone copy your work, claim exclusive proprietary ownership of that work (i.e., copyright), and pursue everyone else who uses your work?</p><p>By analogy (not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.-approved car analogy, but still):</p><p>You can throw cat food out for all the feral kitties living in your neighborhood, but what can you do if one cat drives all the others away? What if that cat attacks you to take away the cat food you have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am planning on releasing a lot of digital images I made to the public domain .
For free .
And if someone takes those and enhances them in any way or uses them to make their own art ( like sampling in the music industry ) they are free to make their own choice about which copyright to use .
If this enhancement process only means a bot will download them and rename them to sell them on a different website then I will have to live with that .
Will you live with having someone copy your work , claim exclusive proprietary ownership of that work ( i.e. , copyright ) , and pursue everyone else who uses your work ? By analogy ( not /.-approved car analogy , but still ) : You can throw cat food out for all the feral kitties living in your neighborhood , but what can you do if one cat drives all the others away ?
What if that cat attacks you to take away the cat food you have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I am planning on releasing a lot of digital images I made to the public domain.
For free.
And if someone takes those and enhances them in any way or uses them to make their own art (like sampling in the music industry) they are free to make their own choice about which copyright to use.
If this enhancement process only means a bot will download them and rename them to sell them on a different website then I will have to live with that.
Will you live with having someone copy your work, claim exclusive proprietary ownership of that work (i.e., copyright), and pursue everyone else who uses your work?By analogy (not /.-approved car analogy, but still):You can throw cat food out for all the feral kitties living in your neighborhood, but what can you do if one cat drives all the others away?
What if that cat attacks you to take away the cat food you have?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484961</id>
	<title>My sig says it all</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1246039440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484997</id>
	<title>Happy Birthday to You!!!</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1246039620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The tune for the Happy Birthday song was composed in 1893, and the lyrics have been around since 1912.  But since the copyright was registered in 1935, we've all been paying royalties, on it, and will forever...
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy\_Birthday\_to\_You" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy\_Birthday\_to\_You</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
This is copyright fraud, but it's so small that noone will take the time and money to the courts to fix it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The tune for the Happy Birthday song was composed in 1893 , and the lyrics have been around since 1912 .
But since the copyright was registered in 1935 , we 've all been paying royalties , on it , and will forever.. . http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy \ _Birthday \ _to \ _You [ wikipedia.org ] This is copyright fraud , but it 's so small that noone will take the time and money to the courts to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tune for the Happy Birthday song was composed in 1893, and the lyrics have been around since 1912.
But since the copyright was registered in 1935, we've all been paying royalties, on it, and will forever...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy\_Birthday\_to\_You [wikipedia.org]
 
This is copyright fraud, but it's so small that noone will take the time and money to the courts to fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505</id>
	<title>Disney does it with fairy tales</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246038000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from children's stories and then they make their own copyrighted version of it.</p><p>Snow White<br>Alice in Wonderland<br>Peter Pan<br>Sleeping Beauty<br>Beauty and the Beast<br>The Little Mermaid<br>The Lion King<br>The Jungle Book</p><p>Etc.</p><p>The copyright from such fair tales and children's stories have expired and they got released to the public domain. Then Disney takes them and rewrites them slightly to have a Disney twist. Then Disney copyrights them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from children 's stories and then they make their own copyrighted version of it.Snow WhiteAlice in WonderlandPeter PanSleeping BeautyBeauty and the BeastThe Little MermaidThe Lion KingThe Jungle BookEtc.The copyright from such fair tales and children 's stories have expired and they got released to the public domain .
Then Disney takes them and rewrites them slightly to have a Disney twist .
Then Disney copyrights them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from children's stories and then they make their own copyrighted version of it.Snow WhiteAlice in WonderlandPeter PanSleeping BeautyBeauty and the BeastThe Little MermaidThe Lion KingThe Jungle BookEtc.The copyright from such fair tales and children's stories have expired and they got released to the public domain.
Then Disney takes them and rewrites them slightly to have a Disney twist.
Then Disney copyrights them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28493221</id>
	<title>Re:It's *Fraud*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246099020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding- I'm surprised this got published.  I couldn't even read it all it was so bad.<br>
&nbsp; <br>"These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free."<br>This \_would\_ be big, except for the absence of footnotes there and the failure to provide any data elsewhere in the paper.  Maybe he meant "countless" as "I didn't bother to count them but think there's probably at least one". <br>
&nbsp; <br>"Law school casebooks bear copyright notices that do not distinguish between the copyrightable editorial comments and the public domain cases reproduced."</p><p>Except that the edited versions provided are not strictly public domain.  Coverage over the edited cases might be weak, but it is still there.  This guy claims to be a law professor but hasn't been clued in that 95\% of cases in \_every\_ casebook are cut down?<br>
&nbsp; <br>While I'm a bitching AC, let me also add that the law students of NYU should have been embarrassed that they selected this for publication.  And what's with the Register picking up a 3-year-old law journal article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding- I 'm surprised this got published .
I could n't even read it all it was so bad .
  " These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale , with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free .
" This \ _would \ _ be big , except for the absence of footnotes there and the failure to provide any data elsewhere in the paper .
Maybe he meant " countless " as " I did n't bother to count them but think there 's probably at least one " .
  " Law school casebooks bear copyright notices that do not distinguish between the copyrightable editorial comments and the public domain cases reproduced .
" Except that the edited versions provided are not strictly public domain .
Coverage over the edited cases might be weak , but it is still there .
This guy claims to be a law professor but has n't been clued in that 95 \ % of cases in \ _every \ _ casebook are cut down ?
  While I 'm a bitching AC , let me also add that the law students of NYU should have been embarrassed that they selected this for publication .
And what 's with the Register picking up a 3-year-old law journal article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding- I'm surprised this got published.
I couldn't even read it all it was so bad.
  "These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free.
"This \_would\_ be big, except for the absence of footnotes there and the failure to provide any data elsewhere in the paper.
Maybe he meant "countless" as "I didn't bother to count them but think there's probably at least one".
  "Law school casebooks bear copyright notices that do not distinguish between the copyrightable editorial comments and the public domain cases reproduced.
"Except that the edited versions provided are not strictly public domain.
Coverage over the edited cases might be weak, but it is still there.
This guy claims to be a law professor but hasn't been clued in that 95\% of cases in \_every\_ casebook are cut down?
  While I'm a bitching AC, let me also add that the law students of NYU should have been embarrassed that they selected this for publication.
And what's with the Register picking up a 3-year-old law journal article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485519</id>
	<title>Re:It's *Fraud*</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1246041660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is because it isn't under the Act at all, nor should it be. It is ordinary fraud and should be prosecuted as such. The fact that the Act provides no penalties for it does not mean that nothing can be done.</p></div></blockquote><p>The copyright act actually DOES provide penalties for falsely attaching a copyright notice.  But they are \_criminal\_ penalties -- 17 USC 506 (c) provides for a $2500 fine for anyone who does so.  But there's no private right of action and good luck actually getting a prosecutor involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is because it is n't under the Act at all , nor should it be .
It is ordinary fraud and should be prosecuted as such .
The fact that the Act provides no penalties for it does not mean that nothing can be done.The copyright act actually DOES provide penalties for falsely attaching a copyright notice .
But they are \ _criminal \ _ penalties -- 17 USC 506 ( c ) provides for a $ 2500 fine for anyone who does so .
But there 's no private right of action and good luck actually getting a prosecutor involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is because it isn't under the Act at all, nor should it be.
It is ordinary fraud and should be prosecuted as such.
The fact that the Act provides no penalties for it does not mean that nothing can be done.The copyright act actually DOES provide penalties for falsely attaching a copyright notice.
But they are \_criminal\_ penalties -- 17 USC 506 (c) provides for a $2500 fine for anyone who does so.
But there's no private right of action and good luck actually getting a prosecutor involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488839</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246013520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point. If I provide a translation from Japanese -&gt; English of a work, I don't get a new copyright on it even though I might have made critical decisions on the context of certain passages (enough to influence the meaning and the way it will be read) as part of my translation. Why should editing or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/typesetting/ be any different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
If I provide a translation from Japanese - &gt; English of a work , I do n't get a new copyright on it even though I might have made critical decisions on the context of certain passages ( enough to influence the meaning and the way it will be read ) as part of my translation .
Why should editing or /typesetting/ be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
If I provide a translation from Japanese -&gt; English of a work, I don't get a new copyright on it even though I might have made critical decisions on the context of certain passages (enough to influence the meaning and the way it will be read) as part of my translation.
Why should editing or /typesetting/ be any different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485585</id>
	<title>Re:Been there, done that</title>
	<author>sgtrock</author>
	<datestamp>1246041960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The printed book itself seems most likely.  IANAL, though, so I'm not sure how much change is required to get it treated as a transformative work.  For all I know, the mere act of printing it is enough.</p><p>BTW, have you checked to see if the book is already carried at Project Gutenberg or another library of public domain works?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The printed book itself seems most likely .
IANAL , though , so I 'm not sure how much change is required to get it treated as a transformative work .
For all I know , the mere act of printing it is enough.BTW , have you checked to see if the book is already carried at Project Gutenberg or another library of public domain works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The printed book itself seems most likely.
IANAL, though, so I'm not sure how much change is required to get it treated as a transformative work.
For all I know, the mere act of printing it is enough.BTW, have you checked to see if the book is already carried at Project Gutenberg or another library of public domain works?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217</id>
	<title>Capitalism at it's finest</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1246036920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitalism doesn't recognize anything that cannot be monetized. And capitalism is also averse to anything being public -- the argument being the tragedy of the commons, which is this: For any shared responsibility, the more people sharing that responsibility, the less responsible each person will be, until everyone is effectively irresponsible, thus the public utility becomes useless/abused/less valuable.</p><p>Capitalism is a fine concept for tangible items. But it's not very good at all for intangibles. Nonetheless, as we moved from a production-based economy to a service-based one, these intangibles had to be protected by businesses somehow, so as to ensure their continued relevance and profitability. The hasty modifications to trade secret, copyright, and patent law, was a poor attempt to bridge this gap, and there was little or no public input. Simply put, society didn't have the time or attention devoted to addressing the changing landscape, because most of us at that time either weren't educated about it, or struggling to put food on the table and change careers to adapt to the changing economy. We were so focused on the immediate result that we all but ignored future consequences.</p><p>Using bait terms won't solve the problem. "Copyfraud" sounds great, but it's meaningless. It's the same with a lot of other terms -- "Net neutrality" comes to mind -- to the uninformed, it sounds good but isn't very descriptive. "Copy fraud" could mean "copying as a means of fraud" -- which is exactly what many businesses are calling the free sharing of digitized information.</p><p>We have three options here, which are not mutually exclusive:</p><p>1. Vote with your dollars. Don't buy products that have an effective cost of zero to own. Put another way - stop buying anything in a purely digital format. Instead, only buy periphery products -- such as warranties, service level agreements, support, or mp3 players, televisions, etc. This will eventually starve out business models that depend on selling products that should be free, and allow business models that support this paradigm shift to free information to flourish.</p><p>2. Stay in the system. Buy out public product and design licensing that ensures they remain public, and then put those rights in a shell corporate. GNU comes to mind, with their GPL licensing, and the many derivatives thereof. By gaming the system in this fashion, GNU is ensuring that copyright enforcement actions will always be in their favor. Over a long enough time frame, they will win the "war", because companies that cannot provide alternatives to public-domain product will go out of business. Ironically, it's one of the best arguments for innovation out there. The only catch is--Placing something in the public domain or having it remain there still has a monentary cost, however low. So far, the community hasn't addressed this systemically.</p><p>3. Ignore it completely. Go about your business. Encourage your friends to do the same. Ignore law enforcement demands, company demands, government demands. They're idiots, you're enlightened, Watch it become a "War on Drugs" and our country become irrelevant in the world economics as it tears itself apart trying to enforce a hopelessly doomed social constraint mechanism. If we cannot succeed domestically, we'll wait until we, as a culture, simply die out from international pressure. *shrug* It's not the most patriotic solution, but it's practical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism does n't recognize anything that can not be monetized .
And capitalism is also averse to anything being public -- the argument being the tragedy of the commons , which is this : For any shared responsibility , the more people sharing that responsibility , the less responsible each person will be , until everyone is effectively irresponsible , thus the public utility becomes useless/abused/less valuable.Capitalism is a fine concept for tangible items .
But it 's not very good at all for intangibles .
Nonetheless , as we moved from a production-based economy to a service-based one , these intangibles had to be protected by businesses somehow , so as to ensure their continued relevance and profitability .
The hasty modifications to trade secret , copyright , and patent law , was a poor attempt to bridge this gap , and there was little or no public input .
Simply put , society did n't have the time or attention devoted to addressing the changing landscape , because most of us at that time either were n't educated about it , or struggling to put food on the table and change careers to adapt to the changing economy .
We were so focused on the immediate result that we all but ignored future consequences.Using bait terms wo n't solve the problem .
" Copyfraud " sounds great , but it 's meaningless .
It 's the same with a lot of other terms -- " Net neutrality " comes to mind -- to the uninformed , it sounds good but is n't very descriptive .
" Copy fraud " could mean " copying as a means of fraud " -- which is exactly what many businesses are calling the free sharing of digitized information.We have three options here , which are not mutually exclusive : 1 .
Vote with your dollars .
Do n't buy products that have an effective cost of zero to own .
Put another way - stop buying anything in a purely digital format .
Instead , only buy periphery products -- such as warranties , service level agreements , support , or mp3 players , televisions , etc .
This will eventually starve out business models that depend on selling products that should be free , and allow business models that support this paradigm shift to free information to flourish.2 .
Stay in the system .
Buy out public product and design licensing that ensures they remain public , and then put those rights in a shell corporate .
GNU comes to mind , with their GPL licensing , and the many derivatives thereof .
By gaming the system in this fashion , GNU is ensuring that copyright enforcement actions will always be in their favor .
Over a long enough time frame , they will win the " war " , because companies that can not provide alternatives to public-domain product will go out of business .
Ironically , it 's one of the best arguments for innovation out there .
The only catch is--Placing something in the public domain or having it remain there still has a monentary cost , however low .
So far , the community has n't addressed this systemically.3 .
Ignore it completely .
Go about your business .
Encourage your friends to do the same .
Ignore law enforcement demands , company demands , government demands .
They 're idiots , you 're enlightened , Watch it become a " War on Drugs " and our country become irrelevant in the world economics as it tears itself apart trying to enforce a hopelessly doomed social constraint mechanism .
If we can not succeed domestically , we 'll wait until we , as a culture , simply die out from international pressure .
* shrug * It 's not the most patriotic solution , but it 's practical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism doesn't recognize anything that cannot be monetized.
And capitalism is also averse to anything being public -- the argument being the tragedy of the commons, which is this: For any shared responsibility, the more people sharing that responsibility, the less responsible each person will be, until everyone is effectively irresponsible, thus the public utility becomes useless/abused/less valuable.Capitalism is a fine concept for tangible items.
But it's not very good at all for intangibles.
Nonetheless, as we moved from a production-based economy to a service-based one, these intangibles had to be protected by businesses somehow, so as to ensure their continued relevance and profitability.
The hasty modifications to trade secret, copyright, and patent law, was a poor attempt to bridge this gap, and there was little or no public input.
Simply put, society didn't have the time or attention devoted to addressing the changing landscape, because most of us at that time either weren't educated about it, or struggling to put food on the table and change careers to adapt to the changing economy.
We were so focused on the immediate result that we all but ignored future consequences.Using bait terms won't solve the problem.
"Copyfraud" sounds great, but it's meaningless.
It's the same with a lot of other terms -- "Net neutrality" comes to mind -- to the uninformed, it sounds good but isn't very descriptive.
"Copy fraud" could mean "copying as a means of fraud" -- which is exactly what many businesses are calling the free sharing of digitized information.We have three options here, which are not mutually exclusive:1.
Vote with your dollars.
Don't buy products that have an effective cost of zero to own.
Put another way - stop buying anything in a purely digital format.
Instead, only buy periphery products -- such as warranties, service level agreements, support, or mp3 players, televisions, etc.
This will eventually starve out business models that depend on selling products that should be free, and allow business models that support this paradigm shift to free information to flourish.2.
Stay in the system.
Buy out public product and design licensing that ensures they remain public, and then put those rights in a shell corporate.
GNU comes to mind, with their GPL licensing, and the many derivatives thereof.
By gaming the system in this fashion, GNU is ensuring that copyright enforcement actions will always be in their favor.
Over a long enough time frame, they will win the "war", because companies that cannot provide alternatives to public-domain product will go out of business.
Ironically, it's one of the best arguments for innovation out there.
The only catch is--Placing something in the public domain or having it remain there still has a monentary cost, however low.
So far, the community hasn't addressed this systemically.3.
Ignore it completely.
Go about your business.
Encourage your friends to do the same.
Ignore law enforcement demands, company demands, government demands.
They're idiots, you're enlightened, Watch it become a "War on Drugs" and our country become irrelevant in the world economics as it tears itself apart trying to enforce a hopelessly doomed social constraint mechanism.
If we cannot succeed domestically, we'll wait until we, as a culture, simply die out from international pressure.
*shrug* It's not the most patriotic solution, but it's practical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484863</id>
	<title>Simple, market-based solution</title>
	<author>wtansill</author>
	<datestamp>1246039140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA, MPAA, etc. all claim insanely high valuations for copyrighted content; witness the latest verdic against now-convicted "pirate" Jamie Thomas-Rasset who is now on the hook for 1.92 million.  Fine.  Let them copyright to their heart's content.

<br> <br>But let's also update the tax code to capture the full monetary value of these copyrighted works.  Oh, and since "intellectual property" does not deteriorate over time as would a piece of real property, the tax code should explicitly disallow depreciation.

<br> <br>I suggest we start collecting back taxes on all of those old "Steamboat Willie" cartoons that Disney started putting out in the early part of the 20th century, along with old music catalogs and so forth.  Let's see how truly valuable these IP assets are, and how many are suddenly not worth keeping copyrighted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA , MPAA , etc .
all claim insanely high valuations for copyrighted content ; witness the latest verdic against now-convicted " pirate " Jamie Thomas-Rasset who is now on the hook for 1.92 million .
Fine. Let them copyright to their heart 's content .
But let 's also update the tax code to capture the full monetary value of these copyrighted works .
Oh , and since " intellectual property " does not deteriorate over time as would a piece of real property , the tax code should explicitly disallow depreciation .
I suggest we start collecting back taxes on all of those old " Steamboat Willie " cartoons that Disney started putting out in the early part of the 20th century , along with old music catalogs and so forth .
Let 's see how truly valuable these IP assets are , and how many are suddenly not worth keeping copyrighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA, MPAA, etc.
all claim insanely high valuations for copyrighted content; witness the latest verdic against now-convicted "pirate" Jamie Thomas-Rasset who is now on the hook for 1.92 million.
Fine.  Let them copyright to their heart's content.
But let's also update the tax code to capture the full monetary value of these copyrighted works.
Oh, and since "intellectual property" does not deteriorate over time as would a piece of real property, the tax code should explicitly disallow depreciation.
I suggest we start collecting back taxes on all of those old "Steamboat Willie" cartoons that Disney started putting out in the early part of the 20th century, along with old music catalogs and so forth.
Let's see how truly valuable these IP assets are, and how many are suddenly not worth keeping copyrighted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483995</id>
	<title>Broken Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free" sounds like it's good for the economy.</p><p>However, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable\_of\_the\_broken\_window" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Parable of the Broken Window</a> [wikipedia.org] would suggest otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free " sounds like it 's good for the economy.However , the Parable of the Broken Window [ wikipedia.org ] would suggest otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free" sounds like it's good for the economy.However, the Parable of the Broken Window [wikipedia.org] would suggest otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485953</id>
	<title>Creative commons PD license</title>
	<author>rangek</author>
	<datestamp>1246043520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get why this person is all about hating the CC-PD license.  Yes, it is technically unnecessary, but it provides a convenient framework for tagging PD works without having to add something "special".  I don't think CC is trying to steal the public domain.  They are just giving content providers one stop shopping for all their licensing needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get why this person is all about hating the CC-PD license .
Yes , it is technically unnecessary , but it provides a convenient framework for tagging PD works without having to add something " special " .
I do n't think CC is trying to steal the public domain .
They are just giving content providers one stop shopping for all their licensing needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get why this person is all about hating the CC-PD license.
Yes, it is technically unnecessary, but it provides a convenient framework for tagging PD works without having to add something "special".
I don't think CC is trying to steal the public domain.
They are just giving content providers one stop shopping for all their licensing needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484443</id>
	<title>it is your moral duty</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246037760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to ignore copyright law</p><p>no, more than that</p><p>it is your moral duty to do your utmost to circumvent, outmaneuver, and otherwise destroy copyright law and the tools that enforce it</p><p>i am not in any way joking. copyright law has nothing to do with artists rights and rewarding artists for their work. it is all about extracting cash from you for your own culture for the sake of some bottom line on some accounting sheet</p><p>copyright must be destroyed, we must outright waged war on it on all fronts</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to ignore copyright lawno , more than thatit is your moral duty to do your utmost to circumvent , outmaneuver , and otherwise destroy copyright law and the tools that enforce iti am not in any way joking .
copyright law has nothing to do with artists rights and rewarding artists for their work .
it is all about extracting cash from you for your own culture for the sake of some bottom line on some accounting sheetcopyright must be destroyed , we must outright waged war on it on all fronts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to ignore copyright lawno, more than thatit is your moral duty to do your utmost to circumvent, outmaneuver, and otherwise destroy copyright law and the tools that enforce iti am not in any way joking.
copyright law has nothing to do with artists rights and rewarding artists for their work.
it is all about extracting cash from you for your own culture for the sake of some bottom line on some accounting sheetcopyright must be destroyed, we must outright waged war on it on all fronts</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971</id>
	<title>I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246035900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I requested a paper via interlibrary loan, and attached was the standard boilerplate that it is copyrighted work, a licensing fee had been paid for the copy to be used only for the purposes of scholarly research, additional copies were $1.25 each to be paid to XXXXXX,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... blah, blah blah.</p><p>The paper was written in <i>1869</i>.</p><p>Idiots.  To use copyright maximalist terminology: they're *stealing* from the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I requested a paper via interlibrary loan , and attached was the standard boilerplate that it is copyrighted work , a licensing fee had been paid for the copy to be used only for the purposes of scholarly research , additional copies were $ 1.25 each to be paid to XXXXXX , ... blah , blah blah.The paper was written in 1869.Idiots .
To use copyright maximalist terminology : they 're * stealing * from the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I requested a paper via interlibrary loan, and attached was the standard boilerplate that it is copyrighted work, a licensing fee had been paid for the copy to be used only for the purposes of scholarly research, additional copies were $1.25 each to be paid to XXXXXX, ... blah, blah blah.The paper was written in 1869.Idiots.
To use copyright maximalist terminology: they're *stealing* from the public domain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489567</id>
	<title>Issue is 'everyone has to be a copyright lawyer'</title>
	<author>bukuman</author>
	<datestamp>1246018140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very complex for people to know what they could take from a work like <i>Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan</i>, at best the publishers over broad claim has a chilling effect at worst it might indeed be copyfraud.</p><p>It would be good for the public if the copyright notices called out exactly what they were claiming, a footer on every page would be fine and do-able. In the commonly claimed case of adding prefaces etc if would be very easy.</p><p>It's better for publishers to make broad vague claims. The exclusionary effect of the claims are supported by the huge penalties for infringement. Conversely the cost of over claiming seems small/unlikely to be called out - publishers can always 'clarify away' their over-claim if it comes to the crunch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very complex for people to know what they could take from a work like Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan , at best the publishers over broad claim has a chilling effect at worst it might indeed be copyfraud.It would be good for the public if the copyright notices called out exactly what they were claiming , a footer on every page would be fine and do-able .
In the commonly claimed case of adding prefaces etc if would be very easy.It 's better for publishers to make broad vague claims .
The exclusionary effect of the claims are supported by the huge penalties for infringement .
Conversely the cost of over claiming seems small/unlikely to be called out - publishers can always 'clarify away ' their over-claim if it comes to the crunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very complex for people to know what they could take from a work like Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan, at best the publishers over broad claim has a chilling effect at worst it might indeed be copyfraud.It would be good for the public if the copyright notices called out exactly what they were claiming, a footer on every page would be fine and do-able.
In the commonly claimed case of adding prefaces etc if would be very easy.It's better for publishers to make broad vague claims.
The exclusionary effect of the claims are supported by the huge penalties for infringement.
Conversely the cost of over claiming seems small/unlikely to be called out - publishers can always 'clarify away' their over-claim if it comes to the crunch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485285</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism at it's finest</title>
	<author>xlotlu</author>
	<datestamp>1246040820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wonderful comment. You'll get your +5 mod anyway, so I'd rather comment on your last "option":</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Ignore it completely. Go about your business. Encourage your friends to do the same. Ignore law enforcement demands, company demands, government demands. They're idiots, you're enlightened, Watch it become a "War on Drugs" and our country become irrelevant in the world economics as it tears itself apart trying to enforce a hopelessly doomed social constraint mechanism. If we cannot succeed domestically, we'll wait until we, as a culture, simply die out from international pressure. *shrug* It's not the most patriotic solution, but it's practical.</p></div><p>Unfortunately that's not the way it goes. There's no you, and us, and patriotism anymore. It's them benefiting from endless copyright vs. us humankind that would benefit from knowledge in the public domain. If the status-quo changes they'll lose their 3rd yacht, and their army of lawyers will need professional reorientation. They have everything to lose and they won't give up easily.</p><p>The RIAA and MPAA might be U.S.-based, but they're everywhere; they just go by different names. Haven't you noticed Swedish online service providers being held liable for $3.5 million for copyright violations that never happened? Or the 3-strikes law that was passed by the French legislative body, and they were barely saved by their constitutional court? Or the traffic filtering efforts in the U.K.?</p><p>Expect the Author's Guild to follow suit once they figure out how to do it internationally. We have yet to find out what ACTA brings upon us.</p><p>So it's not just about your culture, but <b>our</b> culture. If you're waiting for international pressure, sorry to disappoint you: they got to us too. And I somehow doubt the blatant copyright violators like China and revolution-torn Iran will fill that role.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonderful comment .
You 'll get your + 5 mod anyway , so I 'd rather comment on your last " option " : 3 .
Ignore it completely .
Go about your business .
Encourage your friends to do the same .
Ignore law enforcement demands , company demands , government demands .
They 're idiots , you 're enlightened , Watch it become a " War on Drugs " and our country become irrelevant in the world economics as it tears itself apart trying to enforce a hopelessly doomed social constraint mechanism .
If we can not succeed domestically , we 'll wait until we , as a culture , simply die out from international pressure .
* shrug * It 's not the most patriotic solution , but it 's practical.Unfortunately that 's not the way it goes .
There 's no you , and us , and patriotism anymore .
It 's them benefiting from endless copyright vs. us humankind that would benefit from knowledge in the public domain .
If the status-quo changes they 'll lose their 3rd yacht , and their army of lawyers will need professional reorientation .
They have everything to lose and they wo n't give up easily.The RIAA and MPAA might be U.S.-based , but they 're everywhere ; they just go by different names .
Have n't you noticed Swedish online service providers being held liable for $ 3.5 million for copyright violations that never happened ?
Or the 3-strikes law that was passed by the French legislative body , and they were barely saved by their constitutional court ?
Or the traffic filtering efforts in the U.K. ? Expect the Author 's Guild to follow suit once they figure out how to do it internationally .
We have yet to find out what ACTA brings upon us.So it 's not just about your culture , but our culture .
If you 're waiting for international pressure , sorry to disappoint you : they got to us too .
And I somehow doubt the blatant copyright violators like China and revolution-torn Iran will fill that role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonderful comment.
You'll get your +5 mod anyway, so I'd rather comment on your last "option":3.
Ignore it completely.
Go about your business.
Encourage your friends to do the same.
Ignore law enforcement demands, company demands, government demands.
They're idiots, you're enlightened, Watch it become a "War on Drugs" and our country become irrelevant in the world economics as it tears itself apart trying to enforce a hopelessly doomed social constraint mechanism.
If we cannot succeed domestically, we'll wait until we, as a culture, simply die out from international pressure.
*shrug* It's not the most patriotic solution, but it's practical.Unfortunately that's not the way it goes.
There's no you, and us, and patriotism anymore.
It's them benefiting from endless copyright vs. us humankind that would benefit from knowledge in the public domain.
If the status-quo changes they'll lose their 3rd yacht, and their army of lawyers will need professional reorientation.
They have everything to lose and they won't give up easily.The RIAA and MPAA might be U.S.-based, but they're everywhere; they just go by different names.
Haven't you noticed Swedish online service providers being held liable for $3.5 million for copyright violations that never happened?
Or the 3-strikes law that was passed by the French legislative body, and they were barely saved by their constitutional court?
Or the traffic filtering efforts in the U.K.?Expect the Author's Guild to follow suit once they figure out how to do it internationally.
We have yet to find out what ACTA brings upon us.So it's not just about your culture, but our culture.
If you're waiting for international pressure, sorry to disappoint you: they got to us too.
And I somehow doubt the blatant copyright violators like China and revolution-torn Iran will fill that role.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488213</id>
	<title>Re:I see no issue here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246010340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can bottle rain water and sell it to stupid people.  I can take communication bandwidth which costs me nothing extra and charge people every time they send a single text message over it.  I can make something people can make themselves and charge 10 times the value of the components.  I can send spam to millions of people and let them send me money.  If people don't take the time to evaluate their purchases, capitalism dies.</p></div><p>Based on what you just said, if people don't take the time to evaluate their purchases, capitalism <i>thrives</i>.</p><p>A lot of your examples are people paying for convenience.  Yes, I can bottle my own rain water, but only if I set up the equipment to do so and then wait for it to rain.  What if I want some rain water right now?</p><p>A strong argument could be made that all we ever buy is convenience.  We buy food because we don't want to have to grow it ourselves.  We buy land because we don't want to have to fight for it and/or defend it ourselves.  Etc.</p><p>Where's the line between "stupid convenience" and "non-stupid convenience?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can bottle rain water and sell it to stupid people .
I can take communication bandwidth which costs me nothing extra and charge people every time they send a single text message over it .
I can make something people can make themselves and charge 10 times the value of the components .
I can send spam to millions of people and let them send me money .
If people do n't take the time to evaluate their purchases , capitalism dies.Based on what you just said , if people do n't take the time to evaluate their purchases , capitalism thrives.A lot of your examples are people paying for convenience .
Yes , I can bottle my own rain water , but only if I set up the equipment to do so and then wait for it to rain .
What if I want some rain water right now ? A strong argument could be made that all we ever buy is convenience .
We buy food because we do n't want to have to grow it ourselves .
We buy land because we do n't want to have to fight for it and/or defend it ourselves .
Etc.Where 's the line between " stupid convenience " and " non-stupid convenience ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can bottle rain water and sell it to stupid people.
I can take communication bandwidth which costs me nothing extra and charge people every time they send a single text message over it.
I can make something people can make themselves and charge 10 times the value of the components.
I can send spam to millions of people and let them send me money.
If people don't take the time to evaluate their purchases, capitalism dies.Based on what you just said, if people don't take the time to evaluate their purchases, capitalism thrives.A lot of your examples are people paying for convenience.
Yes, I can bottle my own rain water, but only if I set up the equipment to do so and then wait for it to rain.
What if I want some rain water right now?A strong argument could be made that all we ever buy is convenience.
We buy food because we don't want to have to grow it ourselves.
We buy land because we don't want to have to fight for it and/or defend it ourselves.
Etc.Where's the line between "stupid convenience" and "non-stupid convenience?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485369</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism at it's finest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246041120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I suspect that "bait terms" like copyfraud, are more likely to be in the media, and more likely to get people's attention and cooperation, than some suggestion that we all ditch iTunes, etc...<br>.<br>But I would also agree with another poster, that digital content does cost money to produce. I had no problem buying a digital copy of Freakonomics a few years back, because Levitt and Dubner should be compensated for their work. If you want to talk about the children of an author who has been dead for twenty years, that is a different story, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I suspect that " bait terms " like copyfraud , are more likely to be in the media , and more likely to get people 's attention and cooperation , than some suggestion that we all ditch iTunes , etc....But I would also agree with another poster , that digital content does cost money to produce .
I had no problem buying a digital copy of Freakonomics a few years back , because Levitt and Dubner should be compensated for their work .
If you want to talk about the children of an author who has been dead for twenty years , that is a different story , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I suspect that "bait terms" like copyfraud, are more likely to be in the media, and more likely to get people's attention and cooperation, than some suggestion that we all ditch iTunes, etc....But I would also agree with another poster, that digital content does cost money to produce.
I had no problem buying a digital copy of Freakonomics a few years back, because Levitt and Dubner should be compensated for their work.
If you want to talk about the children of an author who has been dead for twenty years, that is a different story, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1246040640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Editing and typesetting should not make a new copyright. It adds no useful art, unless it make massive changes to the original. If it is just to make the original clear why the heck should they get any copyright on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Editing and typesetting should not make a new copyright .
It adds no useful art , unless it make massive changes to the original .
If it is just to make the original clear why the heck should they get any copyright on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editing and typesetting should not make a new copyright.
It adds no useful art, unless it make massive changes to the original.
If it is just to make the original clear why the heck should they get any copyright on it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484213</id>
	<title>It's *Fraud*</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1246036860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public<br>&gt; domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly<br>&gt; refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are<br>&gt; in fact entitled to use for free.</p><p>This is because it isn't under the Act at all, nor should it be.  It is ordinary fraud and should be prosecuted as such.  The fact that the Act provides no penalties for it does not mean that nothing can be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public &gt; domain materials .
There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly &gt; refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are &gt; in fact entitled to use for free.This is because it is n't under the Act at all , nor should it be .
It is ordinary fraud and should be prosecuted as such .
The fact that the Act provides no penalties for it does not mean that nothing can be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public&gt; domain materials.
There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly&gt; refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are&gt; in fact entitled to use for free.This is because it isn't under the Act at all, nor should it be.
It is ordinary fraud and should be prosecuted as such.
The fact that the Act provides no penalties for it does not mean that nothing can be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28491309</id>
	<title>Re:Combating Cyberfraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kessinger is either still DOS'd or has been moved...</p><p>Does someone have more current contact info for the principles so I can contact them with my concerns?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kessinger is either still DOS 'd or has been moved...Does someone have more current contact info for the principles so I can contact them with my concerns ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kessinger is either still DOS'd or has been moved...Does someone have more current contact info for the principles so I can contact them with my concerns?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28518985</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism at it's finest</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1246267140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow! I don't think it could have been said any better! Bookmarked for future reference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
I do n't think it could have been said any better !
Bookmarked for future reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
I don't think it could have been said any better!
Bookmarked for future reference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488087</id>
	<title>No, not literally a "single" company...</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1246009860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The study itself gives many examples of companies that are improperly putting a blanket copyright on works already in the public domain.  Some of the examples of bogus claims are:  copyrights on Shakespeare's plays, copyrights on historical documents (even the <i>Constitution</i>, if you can believe it!), copyrights on music by classical composers, etc.</p><p>The study also highlights the (very) few firms that get it right: Lexis/Nexis (spelling?) search engine, Library of Congress, and others.</p><p>There is a very useful section on the financial incentives for making improper copyright claims, and some great examples of just how very, very lucrative it can be to add a short introduction to a body of works in the public domain, slap a copyright notice on the whole of it, then collect fees.</p><p>The study is not at all too legal/technical, and though of course this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and nobody reads anything, but personally, I learned a tremendous amount in just the first 50 pages.  Recommended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The study itself gives many examples of companies that are improperly putting a blanket copyright on works already in the public domain .
Some of the examples of bogus claims are : copyrights on Shakespeare 's plays , copyrights on historical documents ( even the Constitution , if you can believe it !
) , copyrights on music by classical composers , etc.The study also highlights the ( very ) few firms that get it right : Lexis/Nexis ( spelling ?
) search engine , Library of Congress , and others.There is a very useful section on the financial incentives for making improper copyright claims , and some great examples of just how very , very lucrative it can be to add a short introduction to a body of works in the public domain , slap a copyright notice on the whole of it , then collect fees.The study is not at all too legal/technical , and though of course this is / .
and nobody reads anything , but personally , I learned a tremendous amount in just the first 50 pages .
Recommended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study itself gives many examples of companies that are improperly putting a blanket copyright on works already in the public domain.
Some of the examples of bogus claims are:  copyrights on Shakespeare's plays, copyrights on historical documents (even the Constitution, if you can believe it!
), copyrights on music by classical composers, etc.The study also highlights the (very) few firms that get it right: Lexis/Nexis (spelling?
) search engine, Library of Congress, and others.There is a very useful section on the financial incentives for making improper copyright claims, and some great examples of just how very, very lucrative it can be to add a short introduction to a body of works in the public domain, slap a copyright notice on the whole of it, then collect fees.The study is not at all too legal/technical, and though of course this is /.
and nobody reads anything, but personally, I learned a tremendous amount in just the first 50 pages.
Recommended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484239</id>
	<title>Money</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1246036980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our copyright laws are focused on making money for companies. They <i>should</i> be focused on making works as available as possible while still encouraging the creation of new works.</p><p>It's one of the clearest examples of how our government has been sold and does not exist primarily for the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our copyright laws are focused on making money for companies .
They should be focused on making works as available as possible while still encouraging the creation of new works.It 's one of the clearest examples of how our government has been sold and does not exist primarily for the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our copyright laws are focused on making money for companies.
They should be focused on making works as available as possible while still encouraging the creation of new works.It's one of the clearest examples of how our government has been sold and does not exist primarily for the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489163</id>
	<title>Re:Civil remedies</title>
	<author>Cross-Threaded</author>
	<datestamp>1246015380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting idea, but, how do we answer these questions?</p><p>If this were something that could be litigated in a civil court, and assuming the plaintiff wins, how does the award get distributed fairly, and who does it go to?</p><p>What happens if the defendant successfully counter-sues? Who pays the award then?</p><p>Sticky situations that I don't know the answer to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting idea , but , how do we answer these questions ? If this were something that could be litigated in a civil court , and assuming the plaintiff wins , how does the award get distributed fairly , and who does it go to ? What happens if the defendant successfully counter-sues ?
Who pays the award then ? Sticky situations that I do n't know the answer to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting idea, but, how do we answer these questions?If this were something that could be litigated in a civil court, and assuming the plaintiff wins, how does the award get distributed fairly, and who does it go to?What happens if the defendant successfully counter-sues?
Who pays the award then?Sticky situations that I don't know the answer to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489109</id>
	<title>Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today?</title>
	<author>gnupun</author>
	<datestamp>1246014960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The article summary talks about a one-sided approach to copyright and claims things are being "stolen." But as we've learned from Slashdot's pro-piracy articles, piracy isn't theft, remember? Talk about one-sided.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Slashdot, like GPL, is anti-profit -- and they switch sides and talk from both sides of their figurative mouths to achieve their agenda. They don't want anyone to make money off copyrighted works. How can you "steal" a public domain book? It's available to everyone to use for free or profit, to modify as you see fit -- true freedom. Now they want to add more restrictions in the name of protecting the user and the works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article summary talks about a one-sided approach to copyright and claims things are being " stolen .
" But as we 've learned from Slashdot 's pro-piracy articles , piracy is n't theft , remember ?
Talk about one-sided .
Slashdot , like GPL , is anti-profit -- and they switch sides and talk from both sides of their figurative mouths to achieve their agenda .
They do n't want anyone to make money off copyrighted works .
How can you " steal " a public domain book ?
It 's available to everyone to use for free or profit , to modify as you see fit -- true freedom .
Now they want to add more restrictions in the name of protecting the user and the works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article summary talks about a one-sided approach to copyright and claims things are being "stolen.
" But as we've learned from Slashdot's pro-piracy articles, piracy isn't theft, remember?
Talk about one-sided.
Slashdot, like GPL, is anti-profit -- and they switch sides and talk from both sides of their figurative mouths to achieve their agenda.
They don't want anyone to make money off copyrighted works.
How can you "steal" a public domain book?
It's available to everyone to use for free or profit, to modify as you see fit -- true freedom.
Now they want to add more restrictions in the name of protecting the user and the works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484953</id>
	<title>Re:Disney does it with fairy tales</title>
	<author>BBTaeKwonDo</author>
	<datestamp>1246039440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree. Disney copyrights the drawings, voiceovers, animation, etc. but not the characters and plots. You won't get sued by Disney for distributing, performing, or interpreting your version of Cinderella; you will get sued if you distribute <em>Disney's</em> version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
Disney copyrights the drawings , voiceovers , animation , etc .
but not the characters and plots .
You wo n't get sued by Disney for distributing , performing , or interpreting your version of Cinderella ; you will get sued if you distribute Disney 's version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
Disney copyrights the drawings, voiceovers, animation, etc.
but not the characters and plots.
You won't get sued by Disney for distributing, performing, or interpreting your version of Cinderella; you will get sued if you distribute Disney's version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484999</id>
	<title>therefore the GPL</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1246039620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear tell that this is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs" title="wikipedia.org">why the GPL exists</a> [wikipedia.org].  To stop exactly these kind of shenanigans.  A person writes a derivative work, say a text editor, and wants to make it available to everyone, so does not copyright it.  Another person makes a derivative work from the non copyrighted  work, and then copyrights the result.  Now, not even the original author has acess tot he work.
<p>
Some of this has been solved through copyright changes.  Now everything is automatically copyrighted and if one can prove providence, then one can stop the theft of intellectual property.  If one has the money.  This still does not necessarily eliminate the threat from derivative works, which explains the GPL viral nature.  Not only is this work GPL and in the public domain, but anything derived from it.  This is only way to insure that the authors original intent, to have  product in the public domain, is heeded.  One might complain that the at some point the authors wishes should not be in play, and the work should enter the more general lawless public domain.  Such issues though are not unique to the GPL. Such issues are governed by more general rules such as the leagth of copyright(essentially forever) and the applicability of the EULA.  If the length of copyright were at most the lifetime of the author, and EULA were not allowed to excessively restrict free use by the user, for instant to disallow first sale doctrine and fair use, then these would not be an issue for the GPL either.
</p><p>
But they are issues, and the GPL does appear to provide a good protection against theft from the public domain, which is why those that make a living <a href="http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/026595.html" title="corante.com">stealing</a> [corante.com] <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/25/bing\_travel\_kayak/" title="theregister.co.uk">from</a> [theregister.co.uk] the public good are so against it.  Of course they are.  These companies seldom give anything back , at least not without a huge price tag.  The one time that Bill Gates accidently gave something away, .  Of course now an occasional tuppence are given to select beneficiaries to cloud the guilt, but there you are.  he GPL is evil because it prevents thefts and insure the public domain.  Which is, apparently, a very bad thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear tell that this is why the GPL exists [ wikipedia.org ] .
To stop exactly these kind of shenanigans .
A person writes a derivative work , say a text editor , and wants to make it available to everyone , so does not copyright it .
Another person makes a derivative work from the non copyrighted work , and then copyrights the result .
Now , not even the original author has acess tot he work .
Some of this has been solved through copyright changes .
Now everything is automatically copyrighted and if one can prove providence , then one can stop the theft of intellectual property .
If one has the money .
This still does not necessarily eliminate the threat from derivative works , which explains the GPL viral nature .
Not only is this work GPL and in the public domain , but anything derived from it .
This is only way to insure that the authors original intent , to have product in the public domain , is heeded .
One might complain that the at some point the authors wishes should not be in play , and the work should enter the more general lawless public domain .
Such issues though are not unique to the GPL .
Such issues are governed by more general rules such as the leagth of copyright ( essentially forever ) and the applicability of the EULA .
If the length of copyright were at most the lifetime of the author , and EULA were not allowed to excessively restrict free use by the user , for instant to disallow first sale doctrine and fair use , then these would not be an issue for the GPL either .
But they are issues , and the GPL does appear to provide a good protection against theft from the public domain , which is why those that make a living stealing [ corante.com ] from [ theregister.co.uk ] the public good are so against it .
Of course they are .
These companies seldom give anything back , at least not without a huge price tag .
The one time that Bill Gates accidently gave something away , .
Of course now an occasional tuppence are given to select beneficiaries to cloud the guilt , but there you are .
he GPL is evil because it prevents thefts and insure the public domain .
Which is , apparently , a very bad thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear tell that this is why the GPL exists [wikipedia.org].
To stop exactly these kind of shenanigans.
A person writes a derivative work, say a text editor, and wants to make it available to everyone, so does not copyright it.
Another person makes a derivative work from the non copyrighted  work, and then copyrights the result.
Now, not even the original author has acess tot he work.
Some of this has been solved through copyright changes.
Now everything is automatically copyrighted and if one can prove providence, then one can stop the theft of intellectual property.
If one has the money.
This still does not necessarily eliminate the threat from derivative works, which explains the GPL viral nature.
Not only is this work GPL and in the public domain, but anything derived from it.
This is only way to insure that the authors original intent, to have  product in the public domain, is heeded.
One might complain that the at some point the authors wishes should not be in play, and the work should enter the more general lawless public domain.
Such issues though are not unique to the GPL.
Such issues are governed by more general rules such as the leagth of copyright(essentially forever) and the applicability of the EULA.
If the length of copyright were at most the lifetime of the author, and EULA were not allowed to excessively restrict free use by the user, for instant to disallow first sale doctrine and fair use, then these would not be an issue for the GPL either.
But they are issues, and the GPL does appear to provide a good protection against theft from the public domain, which is why those that make a living stealing [corante.com] from [theregister.co.uk] the public good are so against it.
Of course they are.
These companies seldom give anything back , at least not without a huge price tag.
The one time that Bill Gates accidently gave something away, .
Of course now an occasional tuppence are given to select beneficiaries to cloud the guilt, but there you are.
he GPL is evil because it prevents thefts and insure the public domain.
Which is, apparently, a very bad thing to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488031</id>
	<title>Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today?</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1246009620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I will never understand Slashdot's position as a whole.</p></div><p>And do you honestly not understand why that is? Slashdot is not a single entity. It's a community with very diverse opinions. That's why we get such big discussions here: people disagree.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The GPL is a copyright license complete with usage restrictions under threat of law for copyright infringement.  It's even stated on the FSF website that the GPL assures copyright over a piece of software so that it isn't freely usable by anyone as public domain code.</p></div><p>You may have noticed that people here can violently disagree on whether GPL offers the most freedom or is actually quite restrictive compared to BSD. GPL guarantees freedom to <i>users</i> of derrivative works, whereas BSD-style licenses guarantee freedom for <i>developers</i> of derrivative works.</p><p>However, if there's any position that you can pin on many (but not nearly all) slashdotters, then it's a desire for freedom. Monopolies severely restrict that freedom, which is why monopolists tend not to be very popular around here.</p><p>GPL, while very strong on copyright, doesn't monopolise anything. BSD, which is about as close to public domain as possible while still being a license, doesn't monopolise either, although it allows derrivative works to be monopolised.</p><p>This also explains why content providers who restrict and monopolise access to content are generally not too popular around here. And this particular story is about how people abuse government-sanctioned monopolies in order to monopolise content that used to be free.</p><p>And that's why the "theft" metaphor, while still technically wrong, is probably slightly more applicable to this case than to copyright infringement: you take something away from people: free access to existing content.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If we're suddenly in support of the public domain today and against copyrighting of non-copyrighted works, why can't I use GPL code any way I want?</p></div><p>You can, actually. As long as you don't restrict how others use it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it.</p></div><p>No we don't. We need to discuss it and keep discuss it. The moment we stop doing that, we might as well replace the slashdot discussions with a simple manifesto.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will never understand Slashdot 's position as a whole.And do you honestly not understand why that is ?
Slashdot is not a single entity .
It 's a community with very diverse opinions .
That 's why we get such big discussions here : people disagree.The GPL is a copyright license complete with usage restrictions under threat of law for copyright infringement .
It 's even stated on the FSF website that the GPL assures copyright over a piece of software so that it is n't freely usable by anyone as public domain code.You may have noticed that people here can violently disagree on whether GPL offers the most freedom or is actually quite restrictive compared to BSD .
GPL guarantees freedom to users of derrivative works , whereas BSD-style licenses guarantee freedom for developers of derrivative works.However , if there 's any position that you can pin on many ( but not nearly all ) slashdotters , then it 's a desire for freedom .
Monopolies severely restrict that freedom , which is why monopolists tend not to be very popular around here.GPL , while very strong on copyright , does n't monopolise anything .
BSD , which is about as close to public domain as possible while still being a license , does n't monopolise either , although it allows derrivative works to be monopolised.This also explains why content providers who restrict and monopolise access to content are generally not too popular around here .
And this particular story is about how people abuse government-sanctioned monopolies in order to monopolise content that used to be free.And that 's why the " theft " metaphor , while still technically wrong , is probably slightly more applicable to this case than to copyright infringement : you take something away from people : free access to existing content.If we 're suddenly in support of the public domain today and against copyrighting of non-copyrighted works , why ca n't I use GPL code any way I want ? You can , actually .
As long as you do n't restrict how others use it.We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it.No we do n't .
We need to discuss it and keep discuss it .
The moment we stop doing that , we might as well replace the slashdot discussions with a simple manifesto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will never understand Slashdot's position as a whole.And do you honestly not understand why that is?
Slashdot is not a single entity.
It's a community with very diverse opinions.
That's why we get such big discussions here: people disagree.The GPL is a copyright license complete with usage restrictions under threat of law for copyright infringement.
It's even stated on the FSF website that the GPL assures copyright over a piece of software so that it isn't freely usable by anyone as public domain code.You may have noticed that people here can violently disagree on whether GPL offers the most freedom or is actually quite restrictive compared to BSD.
GPL guarantees freedom to users of derrivative works, whereas BSD-style licenses guarantee freedom for developers of derrivative works.However, if there's any position that you can pin on many (but not nearly all) slashdotters, then it's a desire for freedom.
Monopolies severely restrict that freedom, which is why monopolists tend not to be very popular around here.GPL, while very strong on copyright, doesn't monopolise anything.
BSD, which is about as close to public domain as possible while still being a license, doesn't monopolise either, although it allows derrivative works to be monopolised.This also explains why content providers who restrict and monopolise access to content are generally not too popular around here.
And this particular story is about how people abuse government-sanctioned monopolies in order to monopolise content that used to be free.And that's why the "theft" metaphor, while still technically wrong, is probably slightly more applicable to this case than to copyright infringement: you take something away from people: free access to existing content.If we're suddenly in support of the public domain today and against copyrighting of non-copyrighted works, why can't I use GPL code any way I want?You can, actually.
As long as you don't restrict how others use it.We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it.No we don't.
We need to discuss it and keep discuss it.
The moment we stop doing that, we might as well replace the slashdot discussions with a simple manifesto.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486561</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1246046400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you know that there area lot of public domain music works but very few recorded performances that are in the public domain?</p></div> </blockquote><p>I admit to not being a copyright expert here, but if you can copyright specific performances or editions of a work already in the public domain doesn't that make the work not really public domain in the practical sense?</p><p>What we need in copyright law is a bill, amendment, or whatever detailing exactly what public domain means and gives just as much protection to public domain works as it does to copyrighted works. There should be something saying that once a work is placed (of falls, for whatever reason) into the public domain, all derivative works, performances, and editions also default to the public domain, even if the derivative could be deemed transformative. (I'm of the opinion that if you want to stake a copyright claim to something, it should at least be your entirely new creation.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know that there area lot of public domain music works but very few recorded performances that are in the public domain ?
I admit to not being a copyright expert here , but if you can copyright specific performances or editions of a work already in the public domain does n't that make the work not really public domain in the practical sense ? What we need in copyright law is a bill , amendment , or whatever detailing exactly what public domain means and gives just as much protection to public domain works as it does to copyrighted works .
There should be something saying that once a work is placed ( of falls , for whatever reason ) into the public domain , all derivative works , performances , and editions also default to the public domain , even if the derivative could be deemed transformative .
( I 'm of the opinion that if you want to stake a copyright claim to something , it should at least be your entirely new creation .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know that there area lot of public domain music works but very few recorded performances that are in the public domain?
I admit to not being a copyright expert here, but if you can copyright specific performances or editions of a work already in the public domain doesn't that make the work not really public domain in the practical sense?What we need in copyright law is a bill, amendment, or whatever detailing exactly what public domain means and gives just as much protection to public domain works as it does to copyrighted works.
There should be something saying that once a work is placed (of falls, for whatever reason) into the public domain, all derivative works, performances, and editions also default to the public domain, even if the derivative could be deemed transformative.
(I'm of the opinion that if you want to stake a copyright claim to something, it should at least be your entirely new creation.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490001</id>
	<title>Re:it is your moral duty</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246021620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it is your moral duty to do your utmost to circumvent, outmaneuver [sic], and otherwise destroy copyright law and the tools that enforce it</p><p>i am not in any way joking. copyright law has nothing to do with artists rights and rewarding artists for their work.</p> </div><p>This came up the other day (and before!). The only reason one can license a work, say, CC-BY-SA is due to international copyright law. Without it everything is PD.</p><p>Berne Convention, Art 6bis includes something to the effect that an artist (content creator) has the right to be named as author of their work and to protect the work from alteration. These are important moral rights. The first because if I make something I feel I should be allowed to add my name to it and not allow others to pass it off as their work - if I want to, I don't have to assert my right. The second is equally important. If a work bears my name I have the right to prevent people from altering it and still attributing it to me.</p><p>These rights are only due to copyright law. Copyright's main problem has been commercial pressure to extend the terms which aren't specified in the international treaties - sadly our democracy (in the UK at least) is not fine-grained enough that such an issue will ever, IMO, fall to the people to decide. Unless the I get voted in and manage to enact a system of referenda by public vote, and maybe even then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is your moral duty to do your utmost to circumvent , outmaneuver [ sic ] , and otherwise destroy copyright law and the tools that enforce iti am not in any way joking .
copyright law has nothing to do with artists rights and rewarding artists for their work .
This came up the other day ( and before ! ) .
The only reason one can license a work , say , CC-BY-SA is due to international copyright law .
Without it everything is PD.Berne Convention , Art 6bis includes something to the effect that an artist ( content creator ) has the right to be named as author of their work and to protect the work from alteration .
These are important moral rights .
The first because if I make something I feel I should be allowed to add my name to it and not allow others to pass it off as their work - if I want to , I do n't have to assert my right .
The second is equally important .
If a work bears my name I have the right to prevent people from altering it and still attributing it to me.These rights are only due to copyright law .
Copyright 's main problem has been commercial pressure to extend the terms which are n't specified in the international treaties - sadly our democracy ( in the UK at least ) is not fine-grained enough that such an issue will ever , IMO , fall to the people to decide .
Unless the I get voted in and manage to enact a system of referenda by public vote , and maybe even then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is your moral duty to do your utmost to circumvent, outmaneuver [sic], and otherwise destroy copyright law and the tools that enforce iti am not in any way joking.
copyright law has nothing to do with artists rights and rewarding artists for their work.
This came up the other day (and before!).
The only reason one can license a work, say, CC-BY-SA is due to international copyright law.
Without it everything is PD.Berne Convention, Art 6bis includes something to the effect that an artist (content creator) has the right to be named as author of their work and to protect the work from alteration.
These are important moral rights.
The first because if I make something I feel I should be allowed to add my name to it and not allow others to pass it off as their work - if I want to, I don't have to assert my right.
The second is equally important.
If a work bears my name I have the right to prevent people from altering it and still attributing it to me.These rights are only due to copyright law.
Copyright's main problem has been commercial pressure to extend the terms which aren't specified in the international treaties - sadly our democracy (in the UK at least) is not fine-grained enough that such an issue will ever, IMO, fall to the people to decide.
Unless the I get voted in and manage to enact a system of referenda by public vote, and maybe even then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483993</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1246036020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Good Morning to you;<br>Good Morning to you;<br>Good Morning, dear children;<br>Good Morning to all!</i> </p><p>Bring it on, Warner...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good Morning to you ; Good Morning to you ; Good Morning , dear children ; Good Morning to all !
Bring it on , Warner.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Good Morning to you;Good Morning to you;Good Morning, dear children;Good Morning to all!
Bring it on, Warner...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485551</id>
	<title>Tagging stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246041780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the "Republicans" tag?  This keeps happening.  Is there some kind of tagging conspiracy going on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the " Republicans " tag ?
This keeps happening .
Is there some kind of tagging conspiracy going on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the "Republicans" tag?
This keeps happening.
Is there some kind of tagging conspiracy going on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485569</id>
	<title>Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246041900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, it's somewhat unreasonable to expect all of the loud voices from a huge group of people to have a single position on any issue.  That said, I think it's much closer to that here than in many areas.  Our position is simple and consistent: we decry anything that reduces the total value in the system, and at least have sympathy for whatever increases it.</p><ul><li>Illegally restricting what others can do with public domain material reduces the value in the system.</li><li>Legally restricting what others can do with your copyrighted material *also* reduces the value in the system.</li><li>Technologically restricting what others can do with your copyrighted material (DRM or binary-only distribution) reduces the value in the system.</li><li>Economically restricting what authors are willing to produce (through insufficient reward) reduces the value of the system.</li></ul><p>Several of these are clearly in tension.  The GPL restricts what people can do with a software product, but with the goal of making more works available in the long run.  Copyright restricts what people can do with a creative work, but with the goal of ensuring that authors are motivated to produce.  Differences in priorities and emphasis in resolving these tensions is what accounts for the diversity of opinion here, but this shared foundation and similar perspectives on a shared reality is what accounts for the patterns of voice you've observed - in particular, many feel that the laws around copyright have increasingly lost sight of the fact that there *is* a tension between the "rights" of the author (or more often publisher) and the total value a work provides to the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , it 's somewhat unreasonable to expect all of the loud voices from a huge group of people to have a single position on any issue .
That said , I think it 's much closer to that here than in many areas .
Our position is simple and consistent : we decry anything that reduces the total value in the system , and at least have sympathy for whatever increases it.Illegally restricting what others can do with public domain material reduces the value in the system.Legally restricting what others can do with your copyrighted material * also * reduces the value in the system.Technologically restricting what others can do with your copyrighted material ( DRM or binary-only distribution ) reduces the value in the system.Economically restricting what authors are willing to produce ( through insufficient reward ) reduces the value of the system.Several of these are clearly in tension .
The GPL restricts what people can do with a software product , but with the goal of making more works available in the long run .
Copyright restricts what people can do with a creative work , but with the goal of ensuring that authors are motivated to produce .
Differences in priorities and emphasis in resolving these tensions is what accounts for the diversity of opinion here , but this shared foundation and similar perspectives on a shared reality is what accounts for the patterns of voice you 've observed - in particular , many feel that the laws around copyright have increasingly lost sight of the fact that there * is * a tension between the " rights " of the author ( or more often publisher ) and the total value a work provides to the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, it's somewhat unreasonable to expect all of the loud voices from a huge group of people to have a single position on any issue.
That said, I think it's much closer to that here than in many areas.
Our position is simple and consistent: we decry anything that reduces the total value in the system, and at least have sympathy for whatever increases it.Illegally restricting what others can do with public domain material reduces the value in the system.Legally restricting what others can do with your copyrighted material *also* reduces the value in the system.Technologically restricting what others can do with your copyrighted material (DRM or binary-only distribution) reduces the value in the system.Economically restricting what authors are willing to produce (through insufficient reward) reduces the value of the system.Several of these are clearly in tension.
The GPL restricts what people can do with a software product, but with the goal of making more works available in the long run.
Copyright restricts what people can do with a creative work, but with the goal of ensuring that authors are motivated to produce.
Differences in priorities and emphasis in resolving these tensions is what accounts for the diversity of opinion here, but this shared foundation and similar perspectives on a shared reality is what accounts for the patterns of voice you've observed - in particular, many feel that the laws around copyright have increasingly lost sight of the fact that there *is* a tension between the "rights" of the author (or more often publisher) and the total value a work provides to the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485013</id>
	<title>Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today?</title>
	<author>ChrisLambrou</author>
	<datestamp>1246039680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've painted a very black-and-white, either-or scenario. I think that the anti-copyright sentiment often expressed here on Slashdot is generally targeted against the locking up of our culture by large media organisation with deep pockets used to lobby congress and trample upon individuals with punitive lawsuits.
<br>
<br>
I believe an insistence that copyright be respected for GPL licenced software sits perfectly well with a desire for a more balanced copyright regime - one with much shorter copyright durations, and where people are free to exercise their fair-use rights without being criminalised by the DMCA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've painted a very black-and-white , either-or scenario .
I think that the anti-copyright sentiment often expressed here on Slashdot is generally targeted against the locking up of our culture by large media organisation with deep pockets used to lobby congress and trample upon individuals with punitive lawsuits .
I believe an insistence that copyright be respected for GPL licenced software sits perfectly well with a desire for a more balanced copyright regime - one with much shorter copyright durations , and where people are free to exercise their fair-use rights without being criminalised by the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've painted a very black-and-white, either-or scenario.
I think that the anti-copyright sentiment often expressed here on Slashdot is generally targeted against the locking up of our culture by large media organisation with deep pockets used to lobby congress and trample upon individuals with punitive lawsuits.
I believe an insistence that copyright be respected for GPL licenced software sits perfectly well with a desire for a more balanced copyright regime - one with much shorter copyright durations, and where people are free to exercise their fair-use rights without being criminalised by the DMCA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1246039800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I requested a paper via interlibrary loan, and attached was the standard boilerplate that it is copyrighted work, a licensing fee had been paid for the copy to be used only for the purposes of scholarly research, additional copies were $1.25 each to be paid to XXXXXX,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... blah, blah blah.  The paper was written in 1869.</i> </p><p>This is a good example of one type of sneaky wording that is probably technically true, but means something very different from what most people think it means.  The claimed copyright is probably valid, but it applies to <b>that printed edition</b> of the work.  The words themselves aren't copyrightable, but you can still get a copyright on a specific printed form of the work.  But note that the publisher didn't say this; they used the common technique of just saying "copyright" or used the standard circled 'c' copyright symbol, and didn't quite say what was copyrighted.  (If you misunderstood what they were claiming copyright to, well, it's not their problem that you are so ignorant of copyright law.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>They probably can legally charge a price for a printed copy of their specific printed edition of the work.  But if you were to type the words into your computer and put them online, they'd probably be careful when making a copyright claim, because claiming that they own the words would be fraud.  This is how sites like Project Gutenberg work; they ask people to type up the text of works that are out of copyright, and they put the words online formatted differently from any printed version.  That way, they aren't violating the copyright on any printed edition.</p><p>I've seen a bit of this from working with a group that's putting a lot of music online in a compact computerized data format.  There are several formats competing now, with ABC in the lead, and formats like LilyPond, RoseGarden, and Music[X]ML with active development of interesting software.  Most of the online music is old, 1800s or earlier, in great part due to copyright considerations.  Still, I've read of a number of cases where some publisher sends a nasty C&amp;D letter to someone with such music on their site.  The site's owner talks a bit on some forums, then sends a reply of the form "That music was published by So-and-So in London in 1723.  My file is not a scan of your publication or any other publication.  How are you claiming ownership of the music?"  The publisher understands that they've been caught in an attempt at consumer fraud, and so far they have always slunk away and aren't heard from again.  Until we read in some forum that another user of the software has received a nasty C&amp;D message.</p><p>Actually, sometimes it works differently.  My web site has copies of the transcription of the three O'Neill's volumes (that every traditional Irish musician will know).  The transcribing was done by a small team of musicians.  I did a search for current printed editions, found that Mel Bay makes some very good ones (that open flat on a music stand).  So I put links to melbay.com in my pages describing the collection, recommending these editions to anyone who would like a good printed copy.  A few months later, I got a nice message from a Mel Bay employee, thanking me for referring people to them.  There was no hint that they were unhappy with our online "edition".  Someone there understood that my site was good advertising for them.  Their editions of such old music also contain copyright notices at the beginning that says fairly clearly that it's their printed edition that is covered.  The actual pages of music often don't even contain copyright notices, apparently because they often use copies of the original printing plates, which are out of copyright now (and hidden away in a library somewhere).</p><p>So some publishers are trying to do such things right.  We should encourage them.</p><p>(I also like to use such things in discussions of how threatened publishers are by online editions.  Printed editions of music that's available online are often selling pretty well.  T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I requested a paper via interlibrary loan , and attached was the standard boilerplate that it is copyrighted work , a licensing fee had been paid for the copy to be used only for the purposes of scholarly research , additional copies were $ 1.25 each to be paid to XXXXXX , ... blah , blah blah .
The paper was written in 1869 .
This is a good example of one type of sneaky wording that is probably technically true , but means something very different from what most people think it means .
The claimed copyright is probably valid , but it applies to that printed edition of the work .
The words themselves are n't copyrightable , but you can still get a copyright on a specific printed form of the work .
But note that the publisher did n't say this ; they used the common technique of just saying " copyright " or used the standard circled 'c ' copyright symbol , and did n't quite say what was copyrighted .
( If you misunderstood what they were claiming copyright to , well , it 's not their problem that you are so ignorant of copyright law .
; - ) They probably can legally charge a price for a printed copy of their specific printed edition of the work .
But if you were to type the words into your computer and put them online , they 'd probably be careful when making a copyright claim , because claiming that they own the words would be fraud .
This is how sites like Project Gutenberg work ; they ask people to type up the text of works that are out of copyright , and they put the words online formatted differently from any printed version .
That way , they are n't violating the copyright on any printed edition.I 've seen a bit of this from working with a group that 's putting a lot of music online in a compact computerized data format .
There are several formats competing now , with ABC in the lead , and formats like LilyPond , RoseGarden , and Music [ X ] ML with active development of interesting software .
Most of the online music is old , 1800s or earlier , in great part due to copyright considerations .
Still , I 've read of a number of cases where some publisher sends a nasty C&amp;D letter to someone with such music on their site .
The site 's owner talks a bit on some forums , then sends a reply of the form " That music was published by So-and-So in London in 1723 .
My file is not a scan of your publication or any other publication .
How are you claiming ownership of the music ?
" The publisher understands that they 've been caught in an attempt at consumer fraud , and so far they have always slunk away and are n't heard from again .
Until we read in some forum that another user of the software has received a nasty C&amp;D message.Actually , sometimes it works differently .
My web site has copies of the transcription of the three O'Neill 's volumes ( that every traditional Irish musician will know ) .
The transcribing was done by a small team of musicians .
I did a search for current printed editions , found that Mel Bay makes some very good ones ( that open flat on a music stand ) .
So I put links to melbay.com in my pages describing the collection , recommending these editions to anyone who would like a good printed copy .
A few months later , I got a nice message from a Mel Bay employee , thanking me for referring people to them .
There was no hint that they were unhappy with our online " edition " .
Someone there understood that my site was good advertising for them .
Their editions of such old music also contain copyright notices at the beginning that says fairly clearly that it 's their printed edition that is covered .
The actual pages of music often do n't even contain copyright notices , apparently because they often use copies of the original printing plates , which are out of copyright now ( and hidden away in a library somewhere ) .So some publishers are trying to do such things right .
We should encourage them .
( I also like to use such things in discussions of how threatened publishers are by online editions .
Printed editions of music that 's available online are often selling pretty well .
T</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I requested a paper via interlibrary loan, and attached was the standard boilerplate that it is copyrighted work, a licensing fee had been paid for the copy to be used only for the purposes of scholarly research, additional copies were $1.25 each to be paid to XXXXXX, ... blah, blah blah.
The paper was written in 1869.
This is a good example of one type of sneaky wording that is probably technically true, but means something very different from what most people think it means.
The claimed copyright is probably valid, but it applies to that printed edition of the work.
The words themselves aren't copyrightable, but you can still get a copyright on a specific printed form of the work.
But note that the publisher didn't say this; they used the common technique of just saying "copyright" or used the standard circled 'c' copyright symbol, and didn't quite say what was copyrighted.
(If you misunderstood what they were claiming copyright to, well, it's not their problem that you are so ignorant of copyright law.
;-)They probably can legally charge a price for a printed copy of their specific printed edition of the work.
But if you were to type the words into your computer and put them online, they'd probably be careful when making a copyright claim, because claiming that they own the words would be fraud.
This is how sites like Project Gutenberg work; they ask people to type up the text of works that are out of copyright, and they put the words online formatted differently from any printed version.
That way, they aren't violating the copyright on any printed edition.I've seen a bit of this from working with a group that's putting a lot of music online in a compact computerized data format.
There are several formats competing now, with ABC in the lead, and formats like LilyPond, RoseGarden, and Music[X]ML with active development of interesting software.
Most of the online music is old, 1800s or earlier, in great part due to copyright considerations.
Still, I've read of a number of cases where some publisher sends a nasty C&amp;D letter to someone with such music on their site.
The site's owner talks a bit on some forums, then sends a reply of the form "That music was published by So-and-So in London in 1723.
My file is not a scan of your publication or any other publication.
How are you claiming ownership of the music?
"  The publisher understands that they've been caught in an attempt at consumer fraud, and so far they have always slunk away and aren't heard from again.
Until we read in some forum that another user of the software has received a nasty C&amp;D message.Actually, sometimes it works differently.
My web site has copies of the transcription of the three O'Neill's volumes (that every traditional Irish musician will know).
The transcribing was done by a small team of musicians.
I did a search for current printed editions, found that Mel Bay makes some very good ones (that open flat on a music stand).
So I put links to melbay.com in my pages describing the collection, recommending these editions to anyone who would like a good printed copy.
A few months later, I got a nice message from a Mel Bay employee, thanking me for referring people to them.
There was no hint that they were unhappy with our online "edition".
Someone there understood that my site was good advertising for them.
Their editions of such old music also contain copyright notices at the beginning that says fairly clearly that it's their printed edition that is covered.
The actual pages of music often don't even contain copyright notices, apparently because they often use copies of the original printing plates, which are out of copyright now (and hidden away in a library somewhere).So some publishers are trying to do such things right.
We should encourage them.
(I also like to use such things in discussions of how threatened publishers are by online editions.
Printed editions of music that's available online are often selling pretty well.
T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486975</id>
	<title>Re:I see no issue here.</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1246048560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "SMS costs phone networks nothing" thing is a myth.</p><p>Yes the standard was designed for messages to be sent without any physical upgrades to the network but it was only designed for a small number of messages, not for the vast number of messages sent today.</p><p>Even without the need to update equiptment to increase capacity (as has been done), you still needed to build a central SMS center to handle the messages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " SMS costs phone networks nothing " thing is a myth.Yes the standard was designed for messages to be sent without any physical upgrades to the network but it was only designed for a small number of messages , not for the vast number of messages sent today.Even without the need to update equiptment to increase capacity ( as has been done ) , you still needed to build a central SMS center to handle the messages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "SMS costs phone networks nothing" thing is a myth.Yes the standard was designed for messages to be sent without any physical upgrades to the network but it was only designed for a small number of messages, not for the vast number of messages sent today.Even without the need to update equiptment to increase capacity (as has been done), you still needed to build a central SMS center to handle the messages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486285</id>
	<title>Re:therefore the GPL</title>
	<author>rhizome</author>
	<datestamp>1246045020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But they are issues, and the GPL does appear to provide a good protection against theft from the public domain</i></p><p>Oh, but RMS is such a weirdo and I don't agree with Perens sometimes and ESR hasn't done anything substantial in years and Redhat charges for support and well, it's just so hard to like the GPL when there are all of these seriously mitigating circumstances. It's so hard to choose between my antipathy toward celebrity and copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they are issues , and the GPL does appear to provide a good protection against theft from the public domainOh , but RMS is such a weirdo and I do n't agree with Perens sometimes and ESR has n't done anything substantial in years and Redhat charges for support and well , it 's just so hard to like the GPL when there are all of these seriously mitigating circumstances .
It 's so hard to choose between my antipathy toward celebrity and copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they are issues, and the GPL does appear to provide a good protection against theft from the public domainOh, but RMS is such a weirdo and I don't agree with Perens sometimes and ESR hasn't done anything substantial in years and Redhat charges for support and well, it's just so hard to like the GPL when there are all of these seriously mitigating circumstances.
It's so hard to choose between my antipathy toward celebrity and copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490221</id>
	<title>Re:therefore the GPL</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246024260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hear tell that this is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs" title="wikipedia.org">why the GPL exists</a> [wikipedia.org].  To stop exactly these kind of shenanigans.  A person writes a derivative work, say a text editor, and wants to make it available to everyone, so does not copyright it.  Another person makes a derivative work from the non copyrighted  work, and then copyrights the result.  Now, not even the original author has acess tot he work.</p></div><p>You misunderstand copyright. Copyright is what the GPL relies on, similarly CC, copyleft, etc.. The only reason you can dictate the terms of the GPL to someone is that you have the original copyright *automatically* by virtue of international agreements valid in almost every state on Earth (and there are agreements for space too apparently). [You noted some of that but it was worth repeating to set up for this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....]</p><p>If something is PD then it cannot be GPL. If you have a GPL'ed work then when I reproduce it has to bear the license. If you then make it PD I don't have to add the license, I don't have to credit you. I can leave you credited and alter it to make you look bad (add in mistakes) and your only recourse is libel laws (!). Some parts of copyright are good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear tell that this is why the GPL exists [ wikipedia.org ] .
To stop exactly these kind of shenanigans .
A person writes a derivative work , say a text editor , and wants to make it available to everyone , so does not copyright it .
Another person makes a derivative work from the non copyrighted work , and then copyrights the result .
Now , not even the original author has acess tot he work.You misunderstand copyright .
Copyright is what the GPL relies on , similarly CC , copyleft , etc.. The only reason you can dictate the terms of the GPL to someone is that you have the original copyright * automatically * by virtue of international agreements valid in almost every state on Earth ( and there are agreements for space too apparently ) .
[ You noted some of that but it was worth repeating to set up for this .... ] If something is PD then it can not be GPL .
If you have a GPL'ed work then when I reproduce it has to bear the license .
If you then make it PD I do n't have to add the license , I do n't have to credit you .
I can leave you credited and alter it to make you look bad ( add in mistakes ) and your only recourse is libel laws ( ! ) .
Some parts of copyright are good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear tell that this is why the GPL exists [wikipedia.org].
To stop exactly these kind of shenanigans.
A person writes a derivative work, say a text editor, and wants to make it available to everyone, so does not copyright it.
Another person makes a derivative work from the non copyrighted  work, and then copyrights the result.
Now, not even the original author has acess tot he work.You misunderstand copyright.
Copyright is what the GPL relies on, similarly CC, copyleft, etc.. The only reason you can dictate the terms of the GPL to someone is that you have the original copyright *automatically* by virtue of international agreements valid in almost every state on Earth (and there are agreements for space too apparently).
[You noted some of that but it was worth repeating to set up for this ....]If something is PD then it cannot be GPL.
If you have a GPL'ed work then when I reproduce it has to bear the license.
If you then make it PD I don't have to add the license, I don't have to credit you.
I can leave you credited and alter it to make you look bad (add in mistakes) and your only recourse is libel laws (!).
Some parts of copyright are good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487167</id>
	<title>Re:Capitalism at it's finest</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246049280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Respect the acceptable/plausible copyrights and <b> <i>ignore</i> </b> the stupid/fraud ones. Simple that.
<br> <br>And, if a lawer from the stupid ones appears on your house, shoot then (shoot twice, just in case)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Respect the acceptable/plausible copyrights and ignore the stupid/fraud ones .
Simple that .
And , if a lawer from the stupid ones appears on your house , shoot then ( shoot twice , just in case ) : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Respect the acceptable/plausible copyrights and  ignore  the stupid/fraud ones.
Simple that.
And, if a lawer from the stupid ones appears on your house, shoot then (shoot twice, just in case) :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490531</id>
	<title>This is sadly logical</title>
	<author>pugugly</author>
	<datestamp>1246027020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the conservative courts have made it a practice to strictly limit damages to the public. When you  know you can only be subject to 10 times the damages in costs, as long as there's no class action suit, if you can make more in profits than you think you will lose in damages, it makes perfect sense to do so.</p><p>A reverse lottery of sorts - as long as nobody else gets a winning ticket, you make out like a bandit.</p><p>(I note for the record, liberal courts have their faults too - I tend to be calmer about them because they do their massive damage accidentally, as opposed to being deliberate attempts to help the powerful at the expense of the weak, but even so - {G})</p><p>Pug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the conservative courts have made it a practice to strictly limit damages to the public .
When you know you can only be subject to 10 times the damages in costs , as long as there 's no class action suit , if you can make more in profits than you think you will lose in damages , it makes perfect sense to do so.A reverse lottery of sorts - as long as nobody else gets a winning ticket , you make out like a bandit .
( I note for the record , liberal courts have their faults too - I tend to be calmer about them because they do their massive damage accidentally , as opposed to being deliberate attempts to help the powerful at the expense of the weak , but even so - { G } ) Pug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the conservative courts have made it a practice to strictly limit damages to the public.
When you  know you can only be subject to 10 times the damages in costs, as long as there's no class action suit, if you can make more in profits than you think you will lose in damages, it makes perfect sense to do so.A reverse lottery of sorts - as long as nobody else gets a winning ticket, you make out like a bandit.
(I note for the record, liberal courts have their faults too - I tend to be calmer about them because they do their massive damage accidentally, as opposed to being deliberate attempts to help the powerful at the expense of the weak, but even so - {G})Pug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489613</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad someone's pointing out this fraud</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1246018440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent post &copy; Tolkien, 2009.<p>What? You made it available to the public!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent post   Tolkien , 2009.What ?
You made it available to the public !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent post © Tolkien, 2009.What?
You made it available to the public!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484667</id>
	<title>Why not?</title>
	<author>Britz</author>
	<datestamp>1246038420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am planning on releasing a lot of digital images I made to the public domain. For free. And if someone takes those and enhances them in any way or uses them to make their own art (like sampling in the music industry) they are free to make their own choice about which copyright to use.</p><p>If this enhancement process only means a bot will download them and rename them to sell them on a different website then I will have to live with that.</p><p>If people WANT to pay money for books they could download for free on project Gutenberg then this is their problem. Right now an artist in the music business makes 3-5 \% from any purchase. The rest of the money goes into advertising, packaging, logistics and so on.</p><p>Where is the big leap from 3-5 to 0-5 \%? Copyfraud is essentially the same. If I were to nicely layout a classic from Shakespeare, print it and buy ads for it, I want to sell books, not get some idiot in my back telling my I am committing "copyfraud".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am planning on releasing a lot of digital images I made to the public domain .
For free .
And if someone takes those and enhances them in any way or uses them to make their own art ( like sampling in the music industry ) they are free to make their own choice about which copyright to use.If this enhancement process only means a bot will download them and rename them to sell them on a different website then I will have to live with that.If people WANT to pay money for books they could download for free on project Gutenberg then this is their problem .
Right now an artist in the music business makes 3-5 \ % from any purchase .
The rest of the money goes into advertising , packaging , logistics and so on.Where is the big leap from 3-5 to 0-5 \ % ?
Copyfraud is essentially the same .
If I were to nicely layout a classic from Shakespeare , print it and buy ads for it , I want to sell books , not get some idiot in my back telling my I am committing " copyfraud " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am planning on releasing a lot of digital images I made to the public domain.
For free.
And if someone takes those and enhances them in any way or uses them to make their own art (like sampling in the music industry) they are free to make their own choice about which copyright to use.If this enhancement process only means a bot will download them and rename them to sell them on a different website then I will have to live with that.If people WANT to pay money for books they could download for free on project Gutenberg then this is their problem.
Right now an artist in the music business makes 3-5 \% from any purchase.
The rest of the money goes into advertising, packaging, logistics and so on.Where is the big leap from 3-5 to 0-5 \%?
Copyfraud is essentially the same.
If I were to nicely layout a classic from Shakespeare, print it and buy ads for it, I want to sell books, not get some idiot in my back telling my I am committing "copyfraud".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485611</id>
	<title>You can find these same works by other companies</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246042080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember at Fry's they used to sell versions of Aladdin, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, etc. (under those names) in animated format.  They suck.  (My kids were watching one at church one day and they are really bad.)  They are still for sale.  Nobody is stopping them.</p><p>What Disney tends to crack down on is:</p><ul>
<li>People using their Trademarks, Characters, etc., which THEY CREATED a likeness of.</li><li>People using THEIR SCRIPT and THEIR SONGS in a musical to which they are selling admission for profit.</li><li>etc.</li></ul><p>Now, this is not to say that Disney doesn't have their share of abuses.  There were several companies selling a "Classic Pooh" bear that looked more like the illustrations in the book and not like the Disney character.  Disney then came out and trademarked their own "Classic Pooh" and then proceeded to sue all their competitors out of business because of the likeness.  That was pretty underhanded, even if the original sellers forgot to get a Trademark.</p><p>Still, for the most part, Disney doesn't really claim ownership in these works.  They are still easy to find for free at Project Gutenberg.  You can still create your own new version of these stories (not including Disney's character designs, songs, added characters or scripts).  Go ahead, film them and put them on YouTube or sell them on Netflix or Amazon.  Nobody is stopping you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember at Fry 's they used to sell versions of Aladdin , Sleeping Beauty , Cinderella , Little Mermaid , etc .
( under those names ) in animated format .
They suck .
( My kids were watching one at church one day and they are really bad .
) They are still for sale .
Nobody is stopping them.What Disney tends to crack down on is : People using their Trademarks , Characters , etc. , which THEY CREATED a likeness of.People using THEIR SCRIPT and THEIR SONGS in a musical to which they are selling admission for profit.etc.Now , this is not to say that Disney does n't have their share of abuses .
There were several companies selling a " Classic Pooh " bear that looked more like the illustrations in the book and not like the Disney character .
Disney then came out and trademarked their own " Classic Pooh " and then proceeded to sue all their competitors out of business because of the likeness .
That was pretty underhanded , even if the original sellers forgot to get a Trademark.Still , for the most part , Disney does n't really claim ownership in these works .
They are still easy to find for free at Project Gutenberg .
You can still create your own new version of these stories ( not including Disney 's character designs , songs , added characters or scripts ) .
Go ahead , film them and put them on YouTube or sell them on Netflix or Amazon .
Nobody is stopping you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember at Fry's they used to sell versions of Aladdin, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, etc.
(under those names) in animated format.
They suck.
(My kids were watching one at church one day and they are really bad.
)  They are still for sale.
Nobody is stopping them.What Disney tends to crack down on is:
People using their Trademarks, Characters, etc., which THEY CREATED a likeness of.People using THEIR SCRIPT and THEIR SONGS in a musical to which they are selling admission for profit.etc.Now, this is not to say that Disney doesn't have their share of abuses.
There were several companies selling a "Classic Pooh" bear that looked more like the illustrations in the book and not like the Disney character.
Disney then came out and trademarked their own "Classic Pooh" and then proceeded to sue all their competitors out of business because of the likeness.
That was pretty underhanded, even if the original sellers forgot to get a Trademark.Still, for the most part, Disney doesn't really claim ownership in these works.
They are still easy to find for free at Project Gutenberg.
You can still create your own new version of these stories (not including Disney's character designs, songs, added characters or scripts).
Go ahead, film them and put them on YouTube or sell them on Netflix or Amazon.
Nobody is stopping you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567</id>
	<title>Is Slashdot for or against copyright today?</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1246038120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article summary talks about a one-sided approach to copyright and claims things are being "stolen."  But as we've learned from Slashdot's pro-piracy articles, piracy isn't theft, remember?  Talk about one-sided.</p><p>I will never understand Slashdot's position as a whole.  Constant pro-piracy, anti-copyright articles are posted to pat everyone on the back and reassure them that their piracy isn't immoral--it's the big media companies who are immoral.  Fine.  Then a GPL violation article comes along, and suddenly content owner rights matter, and going after infringers is okay again.</p><p>The GPL is a copyright license complete with usage restrictions under threat of law for copyright infringement.  It's even stated on the FSF website that the GPL assures copyright over a piece of software so that it isn't freely usable by anyone as public domain code.  Why is Slashdot always against content owners' rights and copyright law in a PirateBay article, a position which benefits you by getting you free stuff through Bittorrent, while being in favor of content owners' rights and copyright law in a GPL article, a position which benefits you by getting you free software?  Clearly, whichever position is most self-serving is the one that's adopted at the time.</p><p>If we're suddenly in support of the public domain today and against copyrighting of non-copyrighted works, why can't I use GPL code any way I want?  The viral nature of the GPL adds usage restrictions and asserts copyright over plugins, themes, extensions, derivative works, and more.</p><p>We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it.  If we're against copyrights, then we're also against the GPL and its viral applicability.  However, if we're in favor of the GPL, then we must also be in favor of the copyrights governing all the things pirated on P2P networks.  You can't pick and choose which situations you want to be a public defender, because that makes you a hypocrite, holding contradictory positions because they all benefit you by getting you free stuff, be it GPL code or DVD rips you didn't pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article summary talks about a one-sided approach to copyright and claims things are being " stolen .
" But as we 've learned from Slashdot 's pro-piracy articles , piracy is n't theft , remember ?
Talk about one-sided.I will never understand Slashdot 's position as a whole .
Constant pro-piracy , anti-copyright articles are posted to pat everyone on the back and reassure them that their piracy is n't immoral--it 's the big media companies who are immoral .
Fine. Then a GPL violation article comes along , and suddenly content owner rights matter , and going after infringers is okay again.The GPL is a copyright license complete with usage restrictions under threat of law for copyright infringement .
It 's even stated on the FSF website that the GPL assures copyright over a piece of software so that it is n't freely usable by anyone as public domain code .
Why is Slashdot always against content owners ' rights and copyright law in a PirateBay article , a position which benefits you by getting you free stuff through Bittorrent , while being in favor of content owners ' rights and copyright law in a GPL article , a position which benefits you by getting you free software ?
Clearly , whichever position is most self-serving is the one that 's adopted at the time.If we 're suddenly in support of the public domain today and against copyrighting of non-copyrighted works , why ca n't I use GPL code any way I want ?
The viral nature of the GPL adds usage restrictions and asserts copyright over plugins , themes , extensions , derivative works , and more.We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it .
If we 're against copyrights , then we 're also against the GPL and its viral applicability .
However , if we 're in favor of the GPL , then we must also be in favor of the copyrights governing all the things pirated on P2P networks .
You ca n't pick and choose which situations you want to be a public defender , because that makes you a hypocrite , holding contradictory positions because they all benefit you by getting you free stuff , be it GPL code or DVD rips you did n't pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article summary talks about a one-sided approach to copyright and claims things are being "stolen.
"  But as we've learned from Slashdot's pro-piracy articles, piracy isn't theft, remember?
Talk about one-sided.I will never understand Slashdot's position as a whole.
Constant pro-piracy, anti-copyright articles are posted to pat everyone on the back and reassure them that their piracy isn't immoral--it's the big media companies who are immoral.
Fine.  Then a GPL violation article comes along, and suddenly content owner rights matter, and going after infringers is okay again.The GPL is a copyright license complete with usage restrictions under threat of law for copyright infringement.
It's even stated on the FSF website that the GPL assures copyright over a piece of software so that it isn't freely usable by anyone as public domain code.
Why is Slashdot always against content owners' rights and copyright law in a PirateBay article, a position which benefits you by getting you free stuff through Bittorrent, while being in favor of content owners' rights and copyright law in a GPL article, a position which benefits you by getting you free software?
Clearly, whichever position is most self-serving is the one that's adopted at the time.If we're suddenly in support of the public domain today and against copyrighting of non-copyrighted works, why can't I use GPL code any way I want?
The viral nature of the GPL adds usage restrictions and asserts copyright over plugins, themes, extensions, derivative works, and more.We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it.
If we're against copyrights, then we're also against the GPL and its viral applicability.
However, if we're in favor of the GPL, then we must also be in favor of the copyrights governing all the things pirated on P2P networks.
You can't pick and choose which situations you want to be a public defender, because that makes you a hypocrite, holding contradictory positions because they all benefit you by getting you free stuff, be it GPL code or DVD rips you didn't pay for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484411</id>
	<title>What's with the fairuse tag?</title>
	<author>onemorechip</author>
	<datestamp>1246037580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story is about fraudulent copyright claims on public domain material; if it's public domain then fair use doesn't apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story is about fraudulent copyright claims on public domain material ; if it 's public domain then fair use does n't apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story is about fraudulent copyright claims on public domain material; if it's public domain then fair use doesn't apply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484293</id>
	<title>Confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246037220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am confused, I thought you could make copies of public domain work and copyright those copies that you have made. Like copyrighting the sheet music made from classical music and such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am confused , I thought you could make copies of public domain work and copyright those copies that you have made .
Like copyrighting the sheet music made from classical music and such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am confused, I thought you could make copies of public domain work and copyright those copies that you have made.
Like copyrighting the sheet music made from classical music and such.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488921</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright itself is theft of the public domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246013940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Property is Theft!!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Property is Theft ! ! !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Property is Theft!!!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484891</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28491309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28518985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28492319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1422248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28493221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28518985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28492319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486561
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485247
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488839
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488141
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488793
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28493221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28487109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484567
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489109
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28491309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485585
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28489227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28488213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28490001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28484953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28486761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28485643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1422248.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1422248.28483985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
