<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_28_1619211</id>
	<title>Judge Thinks Linking To Copyrighted Material Should Be Illegal</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246209360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An article at TechCrunch <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/28/how-to-save-the-newspapers-vol-xii-outlaw-linking/">discusses a blog post from Richard Posner</a>, a US Court of Appeals judge, about the struggling newspaper industry. Posner explains why he thinks the newspapers will continue to struggle, and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion: "Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to <a href="http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/06/the\_future\_of\_n.html">bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials</a> without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion."</htmltext>
<tokenext>An article at TechCrunch discusses a blog post from Richard Posner , a US Court of Appeals judge , about the struggling newspaper industry .
Posner explains why he thinks the newspapers will continue to struggle , and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion : " Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder 's consent , or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder 's consent , might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional , nongovernmental sources of news and opinion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article at TechCrunch discusses a blog post from Richard Posner, a US Court of Appeals judge, about the struggling newspaper industry.
Posner explains why he thinks the newspapers will continue to struggle, and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion: "Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507351</id>
	<title>Everyone would be an infriger!</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1246186800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..so you're saying that they want to make it illegal for me to even <i>discuss</i> news stories, let alone actually putting a <i>link</i> to one in my own blog? What is this, has print media decided to start taking lessons from the RIAA?</htmltext>
<tokenext>..so you 're saying that they want to make it illegal for me to even discuss news stories , let alone actually putting a link to one in my own blog ?
What is this , has print media decided to start taking lessons from the RIAA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..so you're saying that they want to make it illegal for me to even discuss news stories, let alone actually putting a link to one in my own blog?
What is this, has print media decided to start taking lessons from the RIAA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506447</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>thunderclap</author>
	<datestamp>1246222200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is also something no one is noticing. If there is no hotlinking, then yes, newspapers and other sources of news will vanish. But guess what? people still won't pay for news sites or newspapers. So what will happen is suing over copyright will stop because it will mean you content becomes invisible and you make no money on it. And to these people money is king. So if this happen, newspapers will either completely die off leaving public domain news available (because they must make money more than sure to be exclusive) it will kill copyrighting in the US. Oh and us on the net we will stop dealing US news with is actually good because they might stop broadcasting trivia and local events and nationwide. And perhaps some one might finally muzzle Nancy Grace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also something no one is noticing .
If there is no hotlinking , then yes , newspapers and other sources of news will vanish .
But guess what ?
people still wo n't pay for news sites or newspapers .
So what will happen is suing over copyright will stop because it will mean you content becomes invisible and you make no money on it .
And to these people money is king .
So if this happen , newspapers will either completely die off leaving public domain news available ( because they must make money more than sure to be exclusive ) it will kill copyrighting in the US .
Oh and us on the net we will stop dealing US news with is actually good because they might stop broadcasting trivia and local events and nationwide .
And perhaps some one might finally muzzle Nancy Grace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also something no one is noticing.
If there is no hotlinking, then yes, newspapers and other sources of news will vanish.
But guess what?
people still won't pay for news sites or newspapers.
So what will happen is suing over copyright will stop because it will mean you content becomes invisible and you make no money on it.
And to these people money is king.
So if this happen, newspapers will either completely die off leaving public domain news available (because they must make money more than sure to be exclusive) it will kill copyrighting in the US.
Oh and us on the net we will stop dealing US news with is actually good because they might stop broadcasting trivia and local events and nationwide.
And perhaps some one might finally muzzle Nancy Grace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505353</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246214700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry; on my initial reading I glossed over where you detailed you feel this infringes upon your rights of freedom of speech and of the press. I take back my criticism re: enunciating rights.</p><p>I do think the ability to deep link to specific articles, etc, is important for a healthy public debate. I'm not certain linking to someone else's work is completely under the umbrella of speech, however, and would be protected under the speech/press protections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry ; on my initial reading I glossed over where you detailed you feel this infringes upon your rights of freedom of speech and of the press .
I take back my criticism re : enunciating rights.I do think the ability to deep link to specific articles , etc , is important for a healthy public debate .
I 'm not certain linking to someone else 's work is completely under the umbrella of speech , however , and would be protected under the speech/press protections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry; on my initial reading I glossed over where you detailed you feel this infringes upon your rights of freedom of speech and of the press.
I take back my criticism re: enunciating rights.I do think the ability to deep link to specific articles, etc, is important for a healthy public debate.
I'm not certain linking to someone else's work is completely under the umbrella of speech, however, and would be protected under the speech/press protections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505761</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1246217220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it.</p></div><p>

Ok, I'm willing to consider it for a moment, but it's hard to pull a straight line between what is allowed and not allowed without destroying much of the value the web represents today.<br> <br>

In terms of search engines linking and quoting/paraphrasing copyrighted content, consent is already arranged by the robots.txt configuration. Most search engines, including the major players respect that configuration which anyone can adjust for his site, and also respect additional attributes like "nofollow", "noarchive", "noindex", "nosnippet" that will stop the spiders from indexing or caching parts, or all of a website.<br> <br>

In terms of people linking from a particular place, the problem can be partially solved with technology since a site knows where the link came from (the Referrer header, which although not 100\% reliable, as if anything is, works in all popular browsers). <br> <br>

Now, stopping people from manually quoting/paraphrasing without attribution online... very hard issue. Since it goes against the simple provisions of fair use, those will need to be adjusted, let's assume for a moment there are. Big media will sign contracts with each other and quote and paraphrase each other as agreed, so that's ok.<br> <br>

However, what about little players and personal speech? Can nytimes.com give an "explicit consent" to every single of millions of users who want to talk or link to it somewhere on the web. Or what about me paraphrasing and linking to a nytimes.com article on IRC, web chat, or an Instant Messenger, and then this content showing up somewhere on an IRC indexer web site. Will I be liable? Will the indexing site be liable? Where do sites like Twitter sit in this picture. Are they a publishing platform or a personal speech communication platform?<br> <br>

As you see, this requires a very hard to define, strict legal distinction between personal speech online and publishing online. At the current state of the web, the genie is out of the bottle and I don't think such distinction is possible at all; you can't legislate one without affecting the other.<br> <br>

What will happen instead, is we'll see the industry change and adapt to the status quo the web has forced upon it, as we're already witnessing today. It maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, we can't really know before things settle down. But putting limitation on links and quoting won't be the solution everyone's looking for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear , I think we should at least consider it .
Ok , I 'm willing to consider it for a moment , but it 's hard to pull a straight line between what is allowed and not allowed without destroying much of the value the web represents today .
In terms of search engines linking and quoting/paraphrasing copyrighted content , consent is already arranged by the robots.txt configuration .
Most search engines , including the major players respect that configuration which anyone can adjust for his site , and also respect additional attributes like " nofollow " , " noarchive " , " noindex " , " nosnippet " that will stop the spiders from indexing or caching parts , or all of a website .
In terms of people linking from a particular place , the problem can be partially solved with technology since a site knows where the link came from ( the Referrer header , which although not 100 \ % reliable , as if anything is , works in all popular browsers ) .
Now , stopping people from manually quoting/paraphrasing without attribution online... very hard issue .
Since it goes against the simple provisions of fair use , those will need to be adjusted , let 's assume for a moment there are .
Big media will sign contracts with each other and quote and paraphrase each other as agreed , so that 's ok . However , what about little players and personal speech ?
Can nytimes.com give an " explicit consent " to every single of millions of users who want to talk or link to it somewhere on the web .
Or what about me paraphrasing and linking to a nytimes.com article on IRC , web chat , or an Instant Messenger , and then this content showing up somewhere on an IRC indexer web site .
Will I be liable ?
Will the indexing site be liable ?
Where do sites like Twitter sit in this picture .
Are they a publishing platform or a personal speech communication platform ?
As you see , this requires a very hard to define , strict legal distinction between personal speech online and publishing online .
At the current state of the web , the genie is out of the bottle and I do n't think such distinction is possible at all ; you ca n't legislate one without affecting the other .
What will happen instead , is we 'll see the industry change and adapt to the status quo the web has forced upon it , as we 're already witnessing today .
It maybe for the better , maybe for the worse , we ca n't really know before things settle down .
But putting limitation on links and quoting wo n't be the solution everyone 's looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it.
Ok, I'm willing to consider it for a moment, but it's hard to pull a straight line between what is allowed and not allowed without destroying much of the value the web represents today.
In terms of search engines linking and quoting/paraphrasing copyrighted content, consent is already arranged by the robots.txt configuration.
Most search engines, including the major players respect that configuration which anyone can adjust for his site, and also respect additional attributes like "nofollow", "noarchive", "noindex", "nosnippet" that will stop the spiders from indexing or caching parts, or all of a website.
In terms of people linking from a particular place, the problem can be partially solved with technology since a site knows where the link came from (the Referrer header, which although not 100\% reliable, as if anything is, works in all popular browsers).
Now, stopping people from manually quoting/paraphrasing without attribution online... very hard issue.
Since it goes against the simple provisions of fair use, those will need to be adjusted, let's assume for a moment there are.
Big media will sign contracts with each other and quote and paraphrase each other as agreed, so that's ok. 

However, what about little players and personal speech?
Can nytimes.com give an "explicit consent" to every single of millions of users who want to talk or link to it somewhere on the web.
Or what about me paraphrasing and linking to a nytimes.com article on IRC, web chat, or an Instant Messenger, and then this content showing up somewhere on an IRC indexer web site.
Will I be liable?
Will the indexing site be liable?
Where do sites like Twitter sit in this picture.
Are they a publishing platform or a personal speech communication platform?
As you see, this requires a very hard to define, strict legal distinction between personal speech online and publishing online.
At the current state of the web, the genie is out of the bottle and I don't think such distinction is possible at all; you can't legislate one without affecting the other.
What will happen instead, is we'll see the industry change and adapt to the status quo the web has forced upon it, as we're already witnessing today.
It maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, we can't really know before things settle down.
But putting limitation on links and quoting won't be the solution everyone's looking for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505549</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His idea to bar linking to copyrighted materials is absurd and could break the web, almost everything on the web is copyrighted by someone. How exactly would implement this for pages where there are multiple copyright owners for different parts of the page, who have only given permission to the original site to use them? Would I need every commenter's permission to link to a Slashdot comment page? You only give permission to Slashdot to use your content not me.</p><p>There are already ways to restrict people from linking to your site, you could block all requests that don't have a referer from a list of approved sites. I realize that it is easy to turn off or fake referers but most users either won't know how or won't bother. Also as for restricting copyrighted material to only preapproved individuals, that technology already exists and is used very widely on the internet and copyright law can already deal with sites that will take copyrighted material and simply redisplay it. While I share his desire to see newspapers continue and not die out, this is not the right approach (or at least we don't need new laws for them).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His idea to bar linking to copyrighted materials is absurd and could break the web , almost everything on the web is copyrighted by someone .
How exactly would implement this for pages where there are multiple copyright owners for different parts of the page , who have only given permission to the original site to use them ?
Would I need every commenter 's permission to link to a Slashdot comment page ?
You only give permission to Slashdot to use your content not me.There are already ways to restrict people from linking to your site , you could block all requests that do n't have a referer from a list of approved sites .
I realize that it is easy to turn off or fake referers but most users either wo n't know how or wo n't bother .
Also as for restricting copyrighted material to only preapproved individuals , that technology already exists and is used very widely on the internet and copyright law can already deal with sites that will take copyrighted material and simply redisplay it .
While I share his desire to see newspapers continue and not die out , this is not the right approach ( or at least we do n't need new laws for them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His idea to bar linking to copyrighted materials is absurd and could break the web, almost everything on the web is copyrighted by someone.
How exactly would implement this for pages where there are multiple copyright owners for different parts of the page, who have only given permission to the original site to use them?
Would I need every commenter's permission to link to a Slashdot comment page?
You only give permission to Slashdot to use your content not me.There are already ways to restrict people from linking to your site, you could block all requests that don't have a referer from a list of approved sites.
I realize that it is easy to turn off or fake referers but most users either won't know how or won't bother.
Also as for restricting copyrighted material to only preapproved individuals, that technology already exists and is used very widely on the internet and copyright law can already deal with sites that will take copyrighted material and simply redisplay it.
While I share his desire to see newspapers continue and not die out, this is not the right approach (or at least we don't need new laws for them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505919</id>
	<title>It's honestly not a problem</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1246218240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although it would be a great setback for freedom of speech on the internet, it's not really going to make a difference. Technically page redirects, plain text urls, and shortcut files are not links.</p><p>On the other hand I would like to see how someone would try to enforce this garbage. It would more than likely lead to a plain text warez site or a software that retrieved plain text urls from a warez db.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although it would be a great setback for freedom of speech on the internet , it 's not really going to make a difference .
Technically page redirects , plain text urls , and shortcut files are not links.On the other hand I would like to see how someone would try to enforce this garbage .
It would more than likely lead to a plain text warez site or a software that retrieved plain text urls from a warez db .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although it would be a great setback for freedom of speech on the internet, it's not really going to make a difference.
Technically page redirects, plain text urls, and shortcut files are not links.On the other hand I would like to see how someone would try to enforce this garbage.
It would more than likely lead to a plain text warez site or a software that retrieved plain text urls from a warez db.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506453</id>
	<title>this is the subject</title>
	<author>dhinge</author>
	<datestamp>1246222260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is like removing the bibliography from books or any references to other materials in the book. Is the bookwriter infringing on the copyright by naming the title of another book, quoting it, or naming another source? How many books would have to be re-written before printing if this were applied?

His argument that allowing links would make it so expensive for news sources that only the giants would be left is also nonsense, because these smaller sources (though they may ride other source's news) have shaken the giants through their own profitable ways of broadcasting the news. There are all kinds of ways to make money on the internet, and content providers are still discovering new methods. TV, newspaper, and magazine advertisements are not the only way to generate income for content. If anything, these sources will become better networked and utilize each other's sources to get the news. I don't see any difference in the competition and success as there was previously.

These old dinosaurs are just trying to protect their territory and keep print in service because they're slow to adapt to the internet and they make huge profits off TV. Who's to stay a smaller news source wouldn't put out better programming than CNN or MSNBC (is FoxNews really news?)? Besides, most of the TV giants watch Facebook, Twitter, and Digg to get their news. Talk about trying to bite the hand that feeds them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like removing the bibliography from books or any references to other materials in the book .
Is the bookwriter infringing on the copyright by naming the title of another book , quoting it , or naming another source ?
How many books would have to be re-written before printing if this were applied ?
His argument that allowing links would make it so expensive for news sources that only the giants would be left is also nonsense , because these smaller sources ( though they may ride other source 's news ) have shaken the giants through their own profitable ways of broadcasting the news .
There are all kinds of ways to make money on the internet , and content providers are still discovering new methods .
TV , newspaper , and magazine advertisements are not the only way to generate income for content .
If anything , these sources will become better networked and utilize each other 's sources to get the news .
I do n't see any difference in the competition and success as there was previously .
These old dinosaurs are just trying to protect their territory and keep print in service because they 're slow to adapt to the internet and they make huge profits off TV .
Who 's to stay a smaller news source would n't put out better programming than CNN or MSNBC ( is FoxNews really news ? ) ?
Besides , most of the TV giants watch Facebook , Twitter , and Digg to get their news .
Talk about trying to bite the hand that feeds them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like removing the bibliography from books or any references to other materials in the book.
Is the bookwriter infringing on the copyright by naming the title of another book, quoting it, or naming another source?
How many books would have to be re-written before printing if this were applied?
His argument that allowing links would make it so expensive for news sources that only the giants would be left is also nonsense, because these smaller sources (though they may ride other source's news) have shaken the giants through their own profitable ways of broadcasting the news.
There are all kinds of ways to make money on the internet, and content providers are still discovering new methods.
TV, newspaper, and magazine advertisements are not the only way to generate income for content.
If anything, these sources will become better networked and utilize each other's sources to get the news.
I don't see any difference in the competition and success as there was previously.
These old dinosaurs are just trying to protect their territory and keep print in service because they're slow to adapt to the internet and they make huge profits off TV.
Who's to stay a smaller news source wouldn't put out better programming than CNN or MSNBC (is FoxNews really news?)?
Besides, most of the TV giants watch Facebook, Twitter, and Digg to get their news.
Talk about trying to bite the hand that feeds them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506763</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1246181820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The web was designed to work exactly the way it does now. You publish stuff on a server and others link to it. If the newspapers don't feel that it's in their best interest to have people link to them, they are perfectly free to turn their servers off.</p><p>If they like, they can install a 9600 baud modem and offer a pay service to access their content just like in the bad old days. They are also free to stand around mystified when nobody signs up and the web fills with pundits declaring that they are fully irrelevant.</p><p>If you jump into a pool of your own free will, you are not entitled to complain that you got wet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The web was designed to work exactly the way it does now .
You publish stuff on a server and others link to it .
If the newspapers do n't feel that it 's in their best interest to have people link to them , they are perfectly free to turn their servers off.If they like , they can install a 9600 baud modem and offer a pay service to access their content just like in the bad old days .
They are also free to stand around mystified when nobody signs up and the web fills with pundits declaring that they are fully irrelevant.If you jump into a pool of your own free will , you are not entitled to complain that you got wet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web was designed to work exactly the way it does now.
You publish stuff on a server and others link to it.
If the newspapers don't feel that it's in their best interest to have people link to them, they are perfectly free to turn their servers off.If they like, they can install a 9600 baud modem and offer a pay service to access their content just like in the bad old days.
They are also free to stand around mystified when nobody signs up and the web fills with pundits declaring that they are fully irrelevant.If you jump into a pool of your own free will, you are not entitled to complain that you got wet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505483</id>
	<title>!capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may represent the modern perversion of capitalism, but schemes to prop up failed industries because of their political connections is not capitalism. Closer to socialism or really corporatism. And I can't think of many more deserving of failure than the dead tree status quo merchants.</p><p>Linking to your public ad serving website is not free riding. The fact that you can't stay in business with your model doesn't give you the right to look toward those that are successful to fund your failure. That ain't capitalism for sure.</p><p>P.S. The captcha word for this post is dinosaur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may represent the modern perversion of capitalism , but schemes to prop up failed industries because of their political connections is not capitalism .
Closer to socialism or really corporatism .
And I ca n't think of many more deserving of failure than the dead tree status quo merchants.Linking to your public ad serving website is not free riding .
The fact that you ca n't stay in business with your model does n't give you the right to look toward those that are successful to fund your failure .
That ai n't capitalism for sure.P.S .
The captcha word for this post is dinosaur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may represent the modern perversion of capitalism, but schemes to prop up failed industries because of their political connections is not capitalism.
Closer to socialism or really corporatism.
And I can't think of many more deserving of failure than the dead tree status quo merchants.Linking to your public ad serving website is not free riding.
The fact that you can't stay in business with your model doesn't give you the right to look toward those that are successful to fund your failure.
That ain't capitalism for sure.P.S.
The captcha word for this post is dinosaur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506253</id>
	<title>Unsearchable news</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1246220820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The obvious effect of no linking to newspaper sites (or other original material) is that Google page ranking will fall through the floor for such sites.  The news web sites might allow Googlebot to search the site and index the material, but there won't be other sites linking to the newspaper sites and Google won't be able to use the amount of linking to judge the importance of the sites.  Any sites which grant permission for everyone to link to them will soar in page ranking.  Many blogs are likely to have higher link-based rankings than newspaper sites.  Yes, Google will rank through other means as well, but restrictive sites will lose the indexing ability of the rest of web authors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious effect of no linking to newspaper sites ( or other original material ) is that Google page ranking will fall through the floor for such sites .
The news web sites might allow Googlebot to search the site and index the material , but there wo n't be other sites linking to the newspaper sites and Google wo n't be able to use the amount of linking to judge the importance of the sites .
Any sites which grant permission for everyone to link to them will soar in page ranking .
Many blogs are likely to have higher link-based rankings than newspaper sites .
Yes , Google will rank through other means as well , but restrictive sites will lose the indexing ability of the rest of web authors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious effect of no linking to newspaper sites (or other original material) is that Google page ranking will fall through the floor for such sites.
The news web sites might allow Googlebot to search the site and index the material, but there won't be other sites linking to the newspaper sites and Google won't be able to use the amount of linking to judge the importance of the sites.
Any sites which grant permission for everyone to link to them will soar in page ranking.
Many blogs are likely to have higher link-based rankings than newspaper sites.
Yes, Google will rank through other means as well, but restrictive sites will lose the indexing ability of the rest of web authors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507089</id>
	<title>Wrong medium</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1246184580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably one of the most basic features of the web, one that practically defines it, are links. Putting things in internet, and want to artificially forbid linking is against its nature, is like putting a paper in the water and write a law forbidding that it gets wet. If you want that something not get linked, then don't put in internet, use something else (a book, in not electronic format, i.e.).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably one of the most basic features of the web , one that practically defines it , are links .
Putting things in internet , and want to artificially forbid linking is against its nature , is like putting a paper in the water and write a law forbidding that it gets wet .
If you want that something not get linked , then do n't put in internet , use something else ( a book , in not electronic format , i.e .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably one of the most basic features of the web, one that practically defines it, are links.
Putting things in internet, and want to artificially forbid linking is against its nature, is like putting a paper in the water and write a law forbidding that it gets wet.
If you want that something not get linked, then don't put in internet, use something else (a book, in not electronic format, i.e.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505171</id>
	<title>Re:So this implies...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246213560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And since half the articles are dupes, Slashdot is infringing on itself and must self-destruct!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And since half the articles are dupes , Slashdot is infringing on itself and must self-destruct !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since half the articles are dupes, Slashdot is infringing on itself and must self-destruct!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506467</id>
	<title>Ad revenue?</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1246222440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't most places with an online presence WANT links to their sites?  It's people clicking through these links and getting page hits that generate ad revenue for them.</p><p>I dunno, dog.  This idea is just okay for me, ya know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't most places with an online presence WANT links to their sites ?
It 's people clicking through these links and getting page hits that generate ad revenue for them.I dunno , dog .
This idea is just okay for me , ya know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't most places with an online presence WANT links to their sites?
It's people clicking through these links and getting page hits that generate ad revenue for them.I dunno, dog.
This idea is just okay for me, ya know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507367</id>
	<title>Assumes newspapers are worth saving</title>
	<author>bigbigbison</author>
	<datestamp>1246186920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>His post makes the assumption that older people often make but younger people make much less often: newspapers are worth saving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>His post makes the assumption that older people often make but younger people make much less often : newspapers are worth saving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His post makes the assumption that older people often make but younger people make much less often: newspapers are worth saving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28513311</id>
	<title>Ironically...</title>
	<author>Archtech</author>
	<datestamp>1246286580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if linking to copyrighted material were made illegal, I would *stop* reading newspaper articles. I only ever see those to which I link through Google News.</p><p>As usual, the judge has got it backwards. Linking is what the Web is all about. If your copyrighted material is so precious you don't want anyone linking to it, your remedy is perfectly simple. Don't post it on the Web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if linking to copyrighted material were made illegal , I would * stop * reading newspaper articles .
I only ever see those to which I link through Google News.As usual , the judge has got it backwards .
Linking is what the Web is all about .
If your copyrighted material is so precious you do n't want anyone linking to it , your remedy is perfectly simple .
Do n't post it on the Web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if linking to copyrighted material were made illegal, I would *stop* reading newspaper articles.
I only ever see those to which I link through Google News.As usual, the judge has got it backwards.
Linking is what the Web is all about.
If your copyrighted material is so precious you don't want anyone linking to it, your remedy is perfectly simple.
Don't post it on the Web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28511269</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1246267800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>it is only after visiting the link that slashdot will retroactively make all of the universe break.Fixed that for you.</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is only after visiting the link that slashdot will retroactively make all of the universe break.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is only after visiting the link that slashdot will retroactively make all of the universe break.Fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505611</id>
	<title>He DOES have a point.</title>
	<author>Sowelu</author>
	<datestamp>1246216260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a horrible point, and we don't want to deal with the consequences if he decides to interpret law based on his point, but that doesn't mean it isn't *TRUE*.  Remember that.  The internet is killing newspapers, and it wouldn't be killing them as fast if draconian laws were keeping Fark and Slashdot from existing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a horrible point , and we do n't want to deal with the consequences if he decides to interpret law based on his point , but that does n't mean it is n't * TRUE * .
Remember that .
The internet is killing newspapers , and it would n't be killing them as fast if draconian laws were keeping Fark and Slashdot from existing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a horrible point, and we don't want to deal with the consequences if he decides to interpret law based on his point, but that doesn't mean it isn't *TRUE*.
Remember that.
The internet is killing newspapers, and it wouldn't be killing them as fast if draconian laws were keeping Fark and Slashdot from existing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505557</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posner is notorious for his belief that everything right and just in the world flows from monetary considerations.  He justifies his opinions based on economic efficiency, often to the detriment of what most people would consider obvious human rights.  For example, he has come out against a right to privacy, merely because it is "economically inefficient."  The man is Mr. Spock -- rational to a fault, but not compassionate.</p><p>His opinion of copyright misses the bigger picture: that copyright is meant to encourage culture, not stifle it.  If it's doing the latter because of the economics, then changes need to be made, even if they are inefficient.  This is especially true for news, which contributes to the political debate.  I don't give a damn how much it costs, the public requires unfettered access to the news in order to be an informed electorate.  If it comes from smaller papers, or from blogs that give out "free" content, and if that destroys large newspapers, then so be it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posner is notorious for his belief that everything right and just in the world flows from monetary considerations .
He justifies his opinions based on economic efficiency , often to the detriment of what most people would consider obvious human rights .
For example , he has come out against a right to privacy , merely because it is " economically inefficient .
" The man is Mr. Spock -- rational to a fault , but not compassionate.His opinion of copyright misses the bigger picture : that copyright is meant to encourage culture , not stifle it .
If it 's doing the latter because of the economics , then changes need to be made , even if they are inefficient .
This is especially true for news , which contributes to the political debate .
I do n't give a damn how much it costs , the public requires unfettered access to the news in order to be an informed electorate .
If it comes from smaller papers , or from blogs that give out " free " content , and if that destroys large newspapers , then so be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posner is notorious for his belief that everything right and just in the world flows from monetary considerations.
He justifies his opinions based on economic efficiency, often to the detriment of what most people would consider obvious human rights.
For example, he has come out against a right to privacy, merely because it is "economically inefficient.
"  The man is Mr. Spock -- rational to a fault, but not compassionate.His opinion of copyright misses the bigger picture: that copyright is meant to encourage culture, not stifle it.
If it's doing the latter because of the economics, then changes need to be made, even if they are inefficient.
This is especially true for news, which contributes to the political debate.
I don't give a damn how much it costs, the public requires unfettered access to the news in order to be an informed electorate.
If it comes from smaller papers, or from blogs that give out "free" content, and if that destroys large newspapers, then so be it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505693</id>
	<title>Wikileaks?</title>
	<author>psychcf</author>
	<datestamp>1246216740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't this sort of thing discourage people from using things like Wikileaks to disclose sensitive information? Although I could see the argument for piracy, I think such a policy has the potential for being used in other ways that would ultimately hurt more then just pirates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't this sort of thing discourage people from using things like Wikileaks to disclose sensitive information ?
Although I could see the argument for piracy , I think such a policy has the potential for being used in other ways that would ultimately hurt more then just pirates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't this sort of thing discourage people from using things like Wikileaks to disclose sensitive information?
Although I could see the argument for piracy, I think such a policy has the potential for being used in other ways that would ultimately hurt more then just pirates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505959</id>
	<title>challenging the fabric of a meritocratic society</title>
	<author>SystemicPlural</author>
	<datestamp>1246218540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The free distribution of information on the internet is challenging the fabric of a meritocratic society. This is why the copyright question is so difficult to answer.

The judge makes perfect sense from a meritocratic perspective, but do we want that? I would prefer we moved towards a new set of values (probably peer based anarchism), but this would ultimately involve overhauling our entire politico economic system, pretty much in the same way that the renaissance and scientific enlightenment moved us from an autocratic/monarchist system to the meritocratic one we have today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The free distribution of information on the internet is challenging the fabric of a meritocratic society .
This is why the copyright question is so difficult to answer .
The judge makes perfect sense from a meritocratic perspective , but do we want that ?
I would prefer we moved towards a new set of values ( probably peer based anarchism ) , but this would ultimately involve overhauling our entire politico economic system , pretty much in the same way that the renaissance and scientific enlightenment moved us from an autocratic/monarchist system to the meritocratic one we have today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The free distribution of information on the internet is challenging the fabric of a meritocratic society.
This is why the copyright question is so difficult to answer.
The judge makes perfect sense from a meritocratic perspective, but do we want that?
I would prefer we moved towards a new set of values (probably peer based anarchism), but this would ultimately involve overhauling our entire politico economic system, pretty much in the same way that the renaissance and scientific enlightenment moved us from an autocratic/monarchist system to the meritocratic one we have today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505547</id>
	<title>Bad choice of words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the quote, the only real "WTF" part is the mention of hyperlinks. It's unrelated to the concept being discussed, and it is obviously false that a hyperlink from site A to site B represents any cost (let alone unpaid) to site B. Rather, it is an almost unilateral gift from site A to site B.</p><p>Naturally, I also disagree about the main concept, which essentially calls Fair Use economically untenable. But that is an actual matter for debate, rather than the hyperlink stuff, which is self-evidently contradictory. From looking at Posner's works and credentials, I'd be hesitant to label him "stupid about technology". Maybe it was just a verbal slip?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the quote , the only real " WTF " part is the mention of hyperlinks .
It 's unrelated to the concept being discussed , and it is obviously false that a hyperlink from site A to site B represents any cost ( let alone unpaid ) to site B. Rather , it is an almost unilateral gift from site A to site B.Naturally , I also disagree about the main concept , which essentially calls Fair Use economically untenable .
But that is an actual matter for debate , rather than the hyperlink stuff , which is self-evidently contradictory .
From looking at Posner 's works and credentials , I 'd be hesitant to label him " stupid about technology " .
Maybe it was just a verbal slip ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the quote, the only real "WTF" part is the mention of hyperlinks.
It's unrelated to the concept being discussed, and it is obviously false that a hyperlink from site A to site B represents any cost (let alone unpaid) to site B. Rather, it is an almost unilateral gift from site A to site B.Naturally, I also disagree about the main concept, which essentially calls Fair Use economically untenable.
But that is an actual matter for debate, rather than the hyperlink stuff, which is self-evidently contradictory.
From looking at Posner's works and credentials, I'd be hesitant to label him "stupid about technology".
Maybe it was just a verbal slip?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</id>
	<title>Posner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246213140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it. By any measure, Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion, one of the only judges that really 'get' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.</p><p>I'm hardly alone-- Lessig has noted that <a href="http://www.lessig.org/blog/2006/10/project\_posner.html" title="lessig.org" rel="nofollow">there isn't a federal judge I respect more, both as a judge and person</a> [lessig.org], and Posner was Obama's first choice when asked which sitting judge he would most like to argue before.</p><p>So you may disagree with this opinion-- I'm leaning that way too-- but it's worth fair consideration. Go and actually <a href="http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/06/the\_future\_of\_n.html" title="becker-posner-blog.com" rel="nofollow">read his post</a> [becker-posner-blog.com] before passing judgment. When he was <a href="http://www.lessig.org/blog/2004/08/a\_few\_closing\_thoughts.html" title="lessig.org" rel="nofollow">guest blogging about copyright law</a> [lessig.org] at Lessig.org back in 2004, he noted, "I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions." That goes for both sides in this debate.</p><p>Sort of a hack job by techcrunch actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear , I think we should at least consider it .
By any measure , Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion , one of the only judges that really 'get ' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.I 'm hardly alone-- Lessig has noted that there is n't a federal judge I respect more , both as a judge and person [ lessig.org ] , and Posner was Obama 's first choice when asked which sitting judge he would most like to argue before.So you may disagree with this opinion-- I 'm leaning that way too-- but it 's worth fair consideration .
Go and actually read his post [ becker-posner-blog.com ] before passing judgment .
When he was guest blogging about copyright law [ lessig.org ] at Lessig.org back in 2004 , he noted , " I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions .
" That goes for both sides in this debate.Sort of a hack job by techcrunch actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it.
By any measure, Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion, one of the only judges that really 'get' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.I'm hardly alone-- Lessig has noted that there isn't a federal judge I respect more, both as a judge and person [lessig.org], and Posner was Obama's first choice when asked which sitting judge he would most like to argue before.So you may disagree with this opinion-- I'm leaning that way too-- but it's worth fair consideration.
Go and actually read his post [becker-posner-blog.com] before passing judgment.
When he was guest blogging about copyright law [lessig.org] at Lessig.org back in 2004, he noted, "I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions.
" That goes for both sides in this debate.Sort of a hack job by techcrunch actually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506525</id>
	<title>Why not...</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1246179600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not just make it illegal for newspapers to go out of business? Seriously. We already pass stupid laws and what he is advocating is changing the law to prevent a basic part of the market to function. Shit happens. Businesses fail. Models change. This is the business equivalent of forbidding animals to migrate lest they evolve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just make it illegal for newspapers to go out of business ?
Seriously. We already pass stupid laws and what he is advocating is changing the law to prevent a basic part of the market to function .
Shit happens .
Businesses fail .
Models change .
This is the business equivalent of forbidding animals to migrate lest they evolve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just make it illegal for newspapers to go out of business?
Seriously. We already pass stupid laws and what he is advocating is changing the law to prevent a basic part of the market to function.
Shit happens.
Businesses fail.
Models change.
This is the business equivalent of forbidding animals to migrate lest they evolve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28514607</id>
	<title>Clueless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246293060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another example of the completely clueless judiciary in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another example of the completely clueless judiciary in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another example of the completely clueless judiciary in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28513807</id>
	<title>Speaking as someone who works at a newspaper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246289280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please keep linking to our copyrighted material.  Without website traffic, we might be out of business.  We still circ a lot of papers but the web is the future, and any newspaper people who say otherwise ain't paying attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please keep linking to our copyrighted material .
Without website traffic , we might be out of business .
We still circ a lot of papers but the web is the future , and any newspaper people who say otherwise ai n't paying attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please keep linking to our copyrighted material.
Without website traffic, we might be out of business.
We still circ a lot of papers but the web is the future, and any newspaper people who say otherwise ain't paying attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505523</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246215720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His argument sounds reasonable on the economic side, because he's hardly the only one wondering what'll happen to investigative journalism. You can see it with planted stories, one online site reports something and it grows exponentially so hundreds of sites and blogs and whatnot paraphrase it and then you got google news pointing you to hundred rehashes of that article. If that's a deep story you've spent plenty money to unfold, it's really hard to recover your costs.</p><p>However, from a logical point I don't see it possible - should they then get an exclusive right to that news, like a patent? You really want Fox News to report something, but noone else can present the story with a different twist? What about other media following up on a case reporting 90\% the same but with 10\% additional content? This would be nothing but legal hell to figure out what news are "your" news and not. All this could do is create media cartels of people not suing each other over their respective news, which would be even worse than all the other alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His argument sounds reasonable on the economic side , because he 's hardly the only one wondering what 'll happen to investigative journalism .
You can see it with planted stories , one online site reports something and it grows exponentially so hundreds of sites and blogs and whatnot paraphrase it and then you got google news pointing you to hundred rehashes of that article .
If that 's a deep story you 've spent plenty money to unfold , it 's really hard to recover your costs.However , from a logical point I do n't see it possible - should they then get an exclusive right to that news , like a patent ?
You really want Fox News to report something , but noone else can present the story with a different twist ?
What about other media following up on a case reporting 90 \ % the same but with 10 \ % additional content ?
This would be nothing but legal hell to figure out what news are " your " news and not .
All this could do is create media cartels of people not suing each other over their respective news , which would be even worse than all the other alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His argument sounds reasonable on the economic side, because he's hardly the only one wondering what'll happen to investigative journalism.
You can see it with planted stories, one online site reports something and it grows exponentially so hundreds of sites and blogs and whatnot paraphrase it and then you got google news pointing you to hundred rehashes of that article.
If that's a deep story you've spent plenty money to unfold, it's really hard to recover your costs.However, from a logical point I don't see it possible - should they then get an exclusive right to that news, like a patent?
You really want Fox News to report something, but noone else can present the story with a different twist?
What about other media following up on a case reporting 90\% the same but with 10\% additional content?
This would be nothing but legal hell to figure out what news are "your" news and not.
All this could do is create media cartels of people not suing each other over their respective news, which would be even worse than all the other alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28509119</id>
	<title>Maybe we could explain to the judge ...</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1246203360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be very easy to explain to any copyright holder how then can prevent linking to or downloading their documents.</p><p>First, you explain that a web server is basically a very simple program:  It has a directory, and anything you put in that directory (or any subdirectory) is handed out via HTTP by your web server.  Any file not in that directory is not handed out to anyone.</p><p>So to prevent unauthorized linking or downloading, all you have to do is not put your file(s) in the web server's directory.  It really is that simple.  If you do that, then you don't need to mess with expensive lawsuits to protect your valuable Intellectual Property.  The web server will protect it for you, by not handing it out when someone asks or follows a link to your site.</p><p>Think they could understand this?</p><p>(Lessee; do really need a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) here?  Nah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be very easy to explain to any copyright holder how then can prevent linking to or downloading their documents.First , you explain that a web server is basically a very simple program : It has a directory , and anything you put in that directory ( or any subdirectory ) is handed out via HTTP by your web server .
Any file not in that directory is not handed out to anyone.So to prevent unauthorized linking or downloading , all you have to do is not put your file ( s ) in the web server 's directory .
It really is that simple .
If you do that , then you do n't need to mess with expensive lawsuits to protect your valuable Intellectual Property .
The web server will protect it for you , by not handing it out when someone asks or follows a link to your site.Think they could understand this ?
( Lessee ; do really need a ; - ) here ?
Nah .... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be very easy to explain to any copyright holder how then can prevent linking to or downloading their documents.First, you explain that a web server is basically a very simple program:  It has a directory, and anything you put in that directory (or any subdirectory) is handed out via HTTP by your web server.
Any file not in that directory is not handed out to anyone.So to prevent unauthorized linking or downloading, all you have to do is not put your file(s) in the web server's directory.
It really is that simple.
If you do that, then you don't need to mess with expensive lawsuits to protect your valuable Intellectual Property.
The web server will protect it for you, by not handing it out when someone asks or follows a link to your site.Think they could understand this?
(Lessee; do really need a ;-) here?
Nah ....)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505715</id>
	<title>It is called the World Wide Web</title>
	<author>tombeard</author>
	<datestamp>1246216920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have always felt that if you name your server WWW then you are consenting to linking. That is what the WWW is, a web of links. If you don't like it don't play here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always felt that if you name your server WWW then you are consenting to linking .
That is what the WWW is , a web of links .
If you do n't like it do n't play here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always felt that if you name your server WWW then you are consenting to linking.
That is what the WWW is, a web of links.
If you don't like it don't play here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508901</id>
	<title>As for me and my family...</title>
	<author>matunos</author>
	<datestamp>1246201140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... we'll be listening to NPR, thank you very much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... we 'll be listening to NPR , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... we'll be listening to NPR, thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506111</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246219620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By any measure, Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today...</p></div><p>For about the last four years or so I've gone to becker-posner-blog.com when I feel like arguing with the Republicans. In my book, Posner gets credit for creating an opportunity for people to express opposing views but I'm not convinced that he actually seriously considers those views.</p><p>More to the point, though, by <i>my</i> measure, Posner has been wrong about pretty much every issue he's blogged about - so there's at least one measure by which Posner is not the most impressive judge on the bench.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By any measure , Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today...For about the last four years or so I 've gone to becker-posner-blog.com when I feel like arguing with the Republicans .
In my book , Posner gets credit for creating an opportunity for people to express opposing views but I 'm not convinced that he actually seriously considers those views.More to the point , though , by my measure , Posner has been wrong about pretty much every issue he 's blogged about - so there 's at least one measure by which Posner is not the most impressive judge on the bench .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By any measure, Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today...For about the last four years or so I've gone to becker-posner-blog.com when I feel like arguing with the Republicans.
In my book, Posner gets credit for creating an opportunity for people to express opposing views but I'm not convinced that he actually seriously considers those views.More to the point, though, by my measure, Posner has been wrong about pretty much every issue he's blogged about - so there's at least one measure by which Posner is not the most impressive judge on the bench.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506265</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1246220880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but even geniuses have their weak moments. This is quite clearly a crazy idea. It might solve the particular problems he was addressing, but it would also clearly cause so many more, that it is simply <b>not</b> worth considering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but even geniuses have their weak moments .
This is quite clearly a crazy idea .
It might solve the particular problems he was addressing , but it would also clearly cause so many more , that it is simply not worth considering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but even geniuses have their weak moments.
This is quite clearly a crazy idea.
It might solve the particular problems he was addressing, but it would also clearly cause so many more, that it is simply not worth considering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508087</id>
	<title>Separate content from delivery</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1246193280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's clear that we need professional journalists to exist, to write stories beyond what can be done by amateur bloggers.  But there's no reason that these journalists have to work in media-- that is, the journalists don't have to be employed by the distribution mechanisms like newspapers.  IMVHO, one good route might be to have non-profit journalism organizations, supported by grants and reader contributions, who do the reporting and writing.  They can provide their reports on a website for free or for pay, and also sell them to local newsbundlers who produce a hardcopy of the day's news for commuters and other people who like a physical paper (maybe printed on demand).  Because they're non-profit, they might be able to attract charitable contributions, and even if they charge for news access on their websites, it isn't such a big deal to have their stories showing up on blogs or paraphrased, so long as no one is doing so regularly and blatantly (e.g. posting all the day's stories on their blog).  Perhaps they could run a system where for a certain fee, a blogger could "adopt" a story's link and make it freely available for everyone to read.  There will be cheating, but maybe there's enough money in it for them too.</p><p>We also need to develop a sense among people that paying for the news is a citizens' responsibility, when they can afford it.  One way to do this is to provide funding for news agencies out of federal or state taxes, although some might balk at the government deciding which news agencies are worthy of the funding.  Another possibility could be to have such a tax, but also provide a tax waiver for anyone who can prove that they have donated $X to a news agency in the past year.  That gives people the right to support news agencies of their own choice if they so desire, although we'll have to watch out for fraud with people setting up false newspapers or newssites, particularly political candidates.  We could make payments to newspapers and other news agencies a potential itemized deduction, and look for fraud via the usual tax audits.</p><p>Or maybe something less formal is better: how can we change the perceptions of a culture, so that we recognize that some things are worth paying for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's clear that we need professional journalists to exist , to write stories beyond what can be done by amateur bloggers .
But there 's no reason that these journalists have to work in media-- that is , the journalists do n't have to be employed by the distribution mechanisms like newspapers .
IMVHO , one good route might be to have non-profit journalism organizations , supported by grants and reader contributions , who do the reporting and writing .
They can provide their reports on a website for free or for pay , and also sell them to local newsbundlers who produce a hardcopy of the day 's news for commuters and other people who like a physical paper ( maybe printed on demand ) .
Because they 're non-profit , they might be able to attract charitable contributions , and even if they charge for news access on their websites , it is n't such a big deal to have their stories showing up on blogs or paraphrased , so long as no one is doing so regularly and blatantly ( e.g .
posting all the day 's stories on their blog ) .
Perhaps they could run a system where for a certain fee , a blogger could " adopt " a story 's link and make it freely available for everyone to read .
There will be cheating , but maybe there 's enough money in it for them too.We also need to develop a sense among people that paying for the news is a citizens ' responsibility , when they can afford it .
One way to do this is to provide funding for news agencies out of federal or state taxes , although some might balk at the government deciding which news agencies are worthy of the funding .
Another possibility could be to have such a tax , but also provide a tax waiver for anyone who can prove that they have donated $ X to a news agency in the past year .
That gives people the right to support news agencies of their own choice if they so desire , although we 'll have to watch out for fraud with people setting up false newspapers or newssites , particularly political candidates .
We could make payments to newspapers and other news agencies a potential itemized deduction , and look for fraud via the usual tax audits.Or maybe something less formal is better : how can we change the perceptions of a culture , so that we recognize that some things are worth paying for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's clear that we need professional journalists to exist, to write stories beyond what can be done by amateur bloggers.
But there's no reason that these journalists have to work in media-- that is, the journalists don't have to be employed by the distribution mechanisms like newspapers.
IMVHO, one good route might be to have non-profit journalism organizations, supported by grants and reader contributions, who do the reporting and writing.
They can provide their reports on a website for free or for pay, and also sell them to local newsbundlers who produce a hardcopy of the day's news for commuters and other people who like a physical paper (maybe printed on demand).
Because they're non-profit, they might be able to attract charitable contributions, and even if they charge for news access on their websites, it isn't such a big deal to have their stories showing up on blogs or paraphrased, so long as no one is doing so regularly and blatantly (e.g.
posting all the day's stories on their blog).
Perhaps they could run a system where for a certain fee, a blogger could "adopt" a story's link and make it freely available for everyone to read.
There will be cheating, but maybe there's enough money in it for them too.We also need to develop a sense among people that paying for the news is a citizens' responsibility, when they can afford it.
One way to do this is to provide funding for news agencies out of federal or state taxes, although some might balk at the government deciding which news agencies are worthy of the funding.
Another possibility could be to have such a tax, but also provide a tax waiver for anyone who can prove that they have donated $X to a news agency in the past year.
That gives people the right to support news agencies of their own choice if they so desire, although we'll have to watch out for fraud with people setting up false newspapers or newssites, particularly political candidates.
We could make payments to newspapers and other news agencies a potential itemized deduction, and look for fraud via the usual tax audits.Or maybe something less formal is better: how can we change the perceptions of a culture, so that we recognize that some things are worth paying for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506441</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>tonywong</author>
	<datestamp>1246222140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proper citation would go a long way to encourage where the news came from. Ripping someone off as a blog or as a commercial reporting organization denies the original contributor their due.</p><p>As a side effect, it would help to ascertain when someone is trying to push an issue by astroturfing.</p><p>Part of the issue now that we have the quantity of news being shoved down our throats is now judging the quality of the news that we are getting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proper citation would go a long way to encourage where the news came from .
Ripping someone off as a blog or as a commercial reporting organization denies the original contributor their due.As a side effect , it would help to ascertain when someone is trying to push an issue by astroturfing.Part of the issue now that we have the quantity of news being shoved down our throats is now judging the quality of the news that we are getting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proper citation would go a long way to encourage where the news came from.
Ripping someone off as a blog or as a commercial reporting organization denies the original contributor their due.As a side effect, it would help to ascertain when someone is trying to push an issue by astroturfing.Part of the issue now that we have the quantity of news being shoved down our throats is now judging the quality of the news that we are getting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505401</id>
	<title>This is a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's eliminate all linking to copyrighted material, especially material on traditional slow-to-adapt news sites. No quotations, no citing, no discovery via search engines. This should do wonders to speed their well-deserved demise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's eliminate all linking to copyrighted material , especially material on traditional slow-to-adapt news sites .
No quotations , no citing , no discovery via search engines .
This should do wonders to speed their well-deserved demise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's eliminate all linking to copyrighted material, especially material on traditional slow-to-adapt news sites.
No quotations, no citing, no discovery via search engines.
This should do wonders to speed their well-deserved demise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28514289</id>
	<title>A few thoughts</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1246291680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it's a problem that the news agencies are not being compensated adequately for their efforts and can not continue to exist in their current form without a new model or some guarantees for their existing model.</p><p>No this is not a legal problem.</p><p>The big issue seems to be that 99\% of people are happy reading a headline and a quick summary of some news item. Apparently only a small percentage actually click through to the article (as we are well aware on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.)</p><p>Seems to me that this is a problem of their own creation. People have been trained on Headline News... soundbites, etc.</p><p>Look at 60 Minutes, blogs and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. as an analogue to what the news organizations really need to do. If you want to train people to actually read the article you've got to:</p><p>a) provide in-depth reporting that is truly engaging.</p><p>b) provide first person opinions that people can relate or oppose and then let them voice their opinion.</p><p>c) provide a forum for discussion on the topic.</p><p>None of these solutions fix the problem of people being satisfied with Headlines... those need to be loss-leaders. News organizations need to get over themselves as the "primary source" or "we got the scoop" providers. Nobody cares anymore. They'll either hear about it from a friend, the TV news, online or via txt or RSS... at a time and frequency of their choosing. You can't control when people choose to get up-to-date with current events.</p><p>What you can do is provide bonus material and added benefit.</p><p>News agencies have the resources and experience to provide a wealth of value add to their sites. They just don't want to apparently or they want to do so in a way that can't compete with alternative outlets.</p><p>This is not a legal problem, it's a business problem. Compete or get out of the competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it 's a problem that the news agencies are not being compensated adequately for their efforts and can not continue to exist in their current form without a new model or some guarantees for their existing model.No this is not a legal problem.The big issue seems to be that 99 \ % of people are happy reading a headline and a quick summary of some news item .
Apparently only a small percentage actually click through to the article ( as we are well aware on / .
) Seems to me that this is a problem of their own creation .
People have been trained on Headline News... soundbites , etc.Look at 60 Minutes , blogs and / .
as an analogue to what the news organizations really need to do .
If you want to train people to actually read the article you 've got to : a ) provide in-depth reporting that is truly engaging.b ) provide first person opinions that people can relate or oppose and then let them voice their opinion.c ) provide a forum for discussion on the topic.None of these solutions fix the problem of people being satisfied with Headlines... those need to be loss-leaders .
News organizations need to get over themselves as the " primary source " or " we got the scoop " providers .
Nobody cares anymore .
They 'll either hear about it from a friend , the TV news , online or via txt or RSS... at a time and frequency of their choosing .
You ca n't control when people choose to get up-to-date with current events.What you can do is provide bonus material and added benefit.News agencies have the resources and experience to provide a wealth of value add to their sites .
They just do n't want to apparently or they want to do so in a way that ca n't compete with alternative outlets.This is not a legal problem , it 's a business problem .
Compete or get out of the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it's a problem that the news agencies are not being compensated adequately for their efforts and can not continue to exist in their current form without a new model or some guarantees for their existing model.No this is not a legal problem.The big issue seems to be that 99\% of people are happy reading a headline and a quick summary of some news item.
Apparently only a small percentage actually click through to the article (as we are well aware on /.
)Seems to me that this is a problem of their own creation.
People have been trained on Headline News... soundbites, etc.Look at 60 Minutes, blogs and /.
as an analogue to what the news organizations really need to do.
If you want to train people to actually read the article you've got to:a) provide in-depth reporting that is truly engaging.b) provide first person opinions that people can relate or oppose and then let them voice their opinion.c) provide a forum for discussion on the topic.None of these solutions fix the problem of people being satisfied with Headlines... those need to be loss-leaders.
News organizations need to get over themselves as the "primary source" or "we got the scoop" providers.
Nobody cares anymore.
They'll either hear about it from a friend, the TV news, online or via txt or RSS... at a time and frequency of their choosing.
You can't control when people choose to get up-to-date with current events.What you can do is provide bonus material and added benefit.News agencies have the resources and experience to provide a wealth of value add to their sites.
They just don't want to apparently or they want to do so in a way that can't compete with alternative outlets.This is not a legal problem, it's a business problem.
Compete or get out of the competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28511179</id>
	<title>Websites are billboards</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1246266720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Websites are billboards that are designed to be looked at.</p><p>Any website that wants to prevent anyone from linking to their 'content' can simply install a "door" with a "lock" (a password" to protect the content).</p><p>If you don't want someone to look at your website or your billboard, then you don't create it open to view from passersby...</p><p>This idiocy won't get off the ground.</p><p>Capitalism isn't suited to a non-scarcity based economy -- since the only way capitalism can continue to work is to induce artificial scarcities where there really are none.</p><p>The only way to do that is to create laws restricting access to access to things people already take for granted and already have access to.  It'll be like<br>the war on drugs, except that it will be every "Intellectual Property" -- and on a scale 10x as large.</p><p>The big loser -- will be the parasites who profit off of 'free information' being sold again and again -- getting rich and depleting the worlds resources and capital -- lowering standards of living and lowering productivity, and lowering overall progress needed for humans to survive and prosper into the next millennium.  Without drastic attitude changes in people 'in power', there will be no humans next millennium, or humans will have devolved to tribal status and be subject/victim to whatever natural disaster comes along -- resulting in our eventual extinction.</p><p>If we don't solve the energy crunch issue -- and don't "free up wealth" the concept of 'wealth', and don't raise up the humanity, as a whole, we are dead.  Unfortunately, no one living to day really cares much about life after their death (or their children's death).  It's already the case, in the US, that the standard of living for the current generation is on track to decline from the previous generation -- and further declines are expected after that.  Unless we create large, new, amounts of raw resources, we don't have anything even close to what is necessary in this world to support a standard of living even half that of what exists in the US.</p><p>Globalization-&gt; leads to lower standard of living for top inventors and will limit technological growth as "high tech" knowledge becomes a 'luxury' -- we'll be stuck at the "using up resources" phase -- in a non-renewable, non-sustainable way -- until massive shortages destroy our civilization.  At current rates of consumption against known reserves some materials will run out this century.  Some within the next decade.</p><p>We are going downhill as a species -- because we are all like the lobsters you put in a barrel -- they will keep pulling down the ones that are almost about to escape, so that all are trapped and all die.  That's us and our current morality/mindset.</p><p>Only a new religion of humanity, of caring and reducing suffering among all feeling creatures now and for all time in the future (no taking now at expense of the future), will we turns things around.</p><p>I believe that only a religion of sacrifice will bring the commitment necessary for our species to grow beyond our current condition and have the possibility of surviving by growing beyond this planet.   A religion could inspire the passion necessary for the sacrifices and changes necessary -- and a religion could spread...but I don't know of any other form of human institution or system that could bring about the changes necessary.</p><p>Most certainly religions that focus on 'afterlife' and letting things slide in this life-time for reward in the next life are certainly an anathema to the survival of the species and should be, as enemies of humanity -- seen as pure and destructive evil, now matter how much they cloak themselves with good works or words of faith and belief.</p><p>linda</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Websites are billboards that are designed to be looked at.Any website that wants to prevent anyone from linking to their 'content ' can simply install a " door " with a " lock " ( a password " to protect the content ) .If you do n't want someone to look at your website or your billboard , then you do n't create it open to view from passersby...This idiocy wo n't get off the ground.Capitalism is n't suited to a non-scarcity based economy -- since the only way capitalism can continue to work is to induce artificial scarcities where there really are none.The only way to do that is to create laws restricting access to access to things people already take for granted and already have access to .
It 'll be likethe war on drugs , except that it will be every " Intellectual Property " -- and on a scale 10x as large.The big loser -- will be the parasites who profit off of 'free information ' being sold again and again -- getting rich and depleting the worlds resources and capital -- lowering standards of living and lowering productivity , and lowering overall progress needed for humans to survive and prosper into the next millennium .
Without drastic attitude changes in people 'in power ' , there will be no humans next millennium , or humans will have devolved to tribal status and be subject/victim to whatever natural disaster comes along -- resulting in our eventual extinction.If we do n't solve the energy crunch issue -- and do n't " free up wealth " the concept of 'wealth ' , and do n't raise up the humanity , as a whole , we are dead .
Unfortunately , no one living to day really cares much about life after their death ( or their children 's death ) .
It 's already the case , in the US , that the standard of living for the current generation is on track to decline from the previous generation -- and further declines are expected after that .
Unless we create large , new , amounts of raw resources , we do n't have anything even close to what is necessary in this world to support a standard of living even half that of what exists in the US.Globalization- &gt; leads to lower standard of living for top inventors and will limit technological growth as " high tech " knowledge becomes a 'luxury ' -- we 'll be stuck at the " using up resources " phase -- in a non-renewable , non-sustainable way -- until massive shortages destroy our civilization .
At current rates of consumption against known reserves some materials will run out this century .
Some within the next decade.We are going downhill as a species -- because we are all like the lobsters you put in a barrel -- they will keep pulling down the ones that are almost about to escape , so that all are trapped and all die .
That 's us and our current morality/mindset.Only a new religion of humanity , of caring and reducing suffering among all feeling creatures now and for all time in the future ( no taking now at expense of the future ) , will we turns things around.I believe that only a religion of sacrifice will bring the commitment necessary for our species to grow beyond our current condition and have the possibility of surviving by growing beyond this planet .
A religion could inspire the passion necessary for the sacrifices and changes necessary -- and a religion could spread...but I do n't know of any other form of human institution or system that could bring about the changes necessary.Most certainly religions that focus on 'afterlife ' and letting things slide in this life-time for reward in the next life are certainly an anathema to the survival of the species and should be , as enemies of humanity -- seen as pure and destructive evil , now matter how much they cloak themselves with good works or words of faith and belief.linda</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Websites are billboards that are designed to be looked at.Any website that wants to prevent anyone from linking to their 'content' can simply install a "door" with a "lock" (a password" to protect the content).If you don't want someone to look at your website or your billboard, then you don't create it open to view from passersby...This idiocy won't get off the ground.Capitalism isn't suited to a non-scarcity based economy -- since the only way capitalism can continue to work is to induce artificial scarcities where there really are none.The only way to do that is to create laws restricting access to access to things people already take for granted and already have access to.
It'll be likethe war on drugs, except that it will be every "Intellectual Property" -- and on a scale 10x as large.The big loser -- will be the parasites who profit off of 'free information' being sold again and again -- getting rich and depleting the worlds resources and capital -- lowering standards of living and lowering productivity, and lowering overall progress needed for humans to survive and prosper into the next millennium.
Without drastic attitude changes in people 'in power', there will be no humans next millennium, or humans will have devolved to tribal status and be subject/victim to whatever natural disaster comes along -- resulting in our eventual extinction.If we don't solve the energy crunch issue -- and don't "free up wealth" the concept of 'wealth', and don't raise up the humanity, as a whole, we are dead.
Unfortunately, no one living to day really cares much about life after their death (or their children's death).
It's already the case, in the US, that the standard of living for the current generation is on track to decline from the previous generation -- and further declines are expected after that.
Unless we create large, new, amounts of raw resources, we don't have anything even close to what is necessary in this world to support a standard of living even half that of what exists in the US.Globalization-&gt; leads to lower standard of living for top inventors and will limit technological growth as "high tech" knowledge becomes a 'luxury' -- we'll be stuck at the "using up resources" phase -- in a non-renewable, non-sustainable way -- until massive shortages destroy our civilization.
At current rates of consumption against known reserves some materials will run out this century.
Some within the next decade.We are going downhill as a species -- because we are all like the lobsters you put in a barrel -- they will keep pulling down the ones that are almost about to escape, so that all are trapped and all die.
That's us and our current morality/mindset.Only a new religion of humanity, of caring and reducing suffering among all feeling creatures now and for all time in the future (no taking now at expense of the future), will we turns things around.I believe that only a religion of sacrifice will bring the commitment necessary for our species to grow beyond our current condition and have the possibility of surviving by growing beyond this planet.
A religion could inspire the passion necessary for the sacrifices and changes necessary -- and a religion could spread...but I don't know of any other form of human institution or system that could bring about the changes necessary.Most certainly religions that focus on 'afterlife' and letting things slide in this life-time for reward in the next life are certainly an anathema to the survival of the species and should be, as enemies of humanity -- seen as pure and destructive evil, now matter how much they cloak themselves with good works or words of faith and belief.linda</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28510683</id>
	<title>Re:Why, Just Because!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246217880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Okay so I read his post.  He is making economic arguments over whether or not we have a right.</p><p>Since when are judges supposed to use economic arguments to decide whether or not we have a right?</p></div><p>All rights need justification. Why not use an economic argument to justify a right?</p><p>This is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law\_and\_economics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">exactly what Posner does</a> [wikipedia.org], and his arguments are widely respected in the legal field.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay so I read his post .
He is making economic arguments over whether or not we have a right.Since when are judges supposed to use economic arguments to decide whether or not we have a right ? All rights need justification .
Why not use an economic argument to justify a right ? This is exactly what Posner does [ wikipedia.org ] , and his arguments are widely respected in the legal field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay so I read his post.
He is making economic arguments over whether or not we have a right.Since when are judges supposed to use economic arguments to decide whether or not we have a right?All rights need justification.
Why not use an economic argument to justify a right?This is exactly what Posner does [wikipedia.org], and his arguments are widely respected in the legal field.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505555</id>
	<title>Tubes, it's tubes!  or stupiest idea ever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would destroy the entire web.  Every single link in existence is a link to copyrighted material.</p><p>This sounds like yet another plan that will create bureaucracy where none is needed.  All in an attempt to inflate budgets and get more money (like so, so many government plans).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would destroy the entire web .
Every single link in existence is a link to copyrighted material.This sounds like yet another plan that will create bureaucracy where none is needed .
All in an attempt to inflate budgets and get more money ( like so , so many government plans ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would destroy the entire web.
Every single link in existence is a link to copyrighted material.This sounds like yet another plan that will create bureaucracy where none is needed.
All in an attempt to inflate budgets and get more money (like so, so many government plans).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28512489</id>
	<title>The great firewall of America</title>
	<author>MrPhilby</author>
	<datestamp>1246280640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do find it mildly amusing that in a time when we hear of wholesale meesing with the news in other "regimes" it seems quite acceptable for the current ruling junta of the US, the great corporations, are allowed to mess with freedom, free speech in such a way. You call it copyright, I call it censorship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do find it mildly amusing that in a time when we hear of wholesale meesing with the news in other " regimes " it seems quite acceptable for the current ruling junta of the US , the great corporations , are allowed to mess with freedom , free speech in such a way .
You call it copyright , I call it censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do find it mildly amusing that in a time when we hear of wholesale meesing with the news in other "regimes" it seems quite acceptable for the current ruling junta of the US, the great corporations, are allowed to mess with freedom, free speech in such a way.
You call it copyright, I call it censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505163</id>
	<title>Re:So this implies...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246213500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would, if the anyone clicked on the articles to read them. <b>IF</b> anyone clicked on the articles to read them.

<br>New at this, aren't we?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would , if the anyone clicked on the articles to read them .
IF anyone clicked on the articles to read them .
New at this , are n't we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would, if the anyone clicked on the articles to read them.
IF anyone clicked on the articles to read them.
New at this, aren't we?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505421</id>
	<title>Reference != content</title>
	<author>jernejk</author>
	<datestamp>1246215180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Banning links to web content is the same as banning references in off-line world, which is of course, idiotic.

On the other side, caching and aggregating pages without permission from original author/publisher is a whole different matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Banning links to web content is the same as banning references in off-line world , which is of course , idiotic .
On the other side , caching and aggregating pages without permission from original author/publisher is a whole different matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banning links to web content is the same as banning references in off-line world, which is of course, idiotic.
On the other side, caching and aggregating pages without permission from original author/publisher is a whole different matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506523</id>
	<title>Why are newspapers copyrighted anyway?</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1246179600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the excuse for this one case of copyrighted things? Would the world stop using its creativity to generate news just because newspapers are not copyrighted? Are news creative work or something like that? (Ok, maybe some newspapers out there do make news up...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the excuse for this one case of copyrighted things ?
Would the world stop using its creativity to generate news just because newspapers are not copyrighted ?
Are news creative work or something like that ?
( Ok , maybe some newspapers out there do make news up... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the excuse for this one case of copyrighted things?
Would the world stop using its creativity to generate news just because newspapers are not copyrighted?
Are news creative work or something like that?
(Ok, maybe some newspapers out there do make news up...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28512801</id>
	<title>So why does his blog have a trackback link?</title>
	<author>Biswalt</author>
	<datestamp>1246283100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find this hilarious.  So newspapers (which largeley get their news tips from people calling in for free) are claiming it's reporter salaries that make the bulk of the costs of running a newspaper, and not the costs of operating the gigantic printing presses etc.  Sure, and I'll be looking at that land deal you have in Florida now.

Give me a break.  Following that same logic no newspaper should be allowed to quote people who make statements in a telelvised press conference b/c televising it IS publishing it, and therefore they'd be guilty of a copyright violation.  But obviously we've made a fair use exception if your goal is to write a news article.  Why would the same not apply on the web.

The real thing is $$$.  I used to run a non-profit news website.  I was turned down for press credentials in most cases b/c I didn't have a paper that was sponsored via ad revenue.  this for example, at the time (if not still currently) was the rule even for the White House.  So I wasn't given press credentials b/c I didn't have advertisers, and to the White House you're not a real legitimate news gathering organization unless you have advertising revenue.  So it's obvious that the Newspaper industry is the beneficiary of laws that favor them over amateur bloggers.

And that begs the issue, why?  As in why are we trying to support the news industry rather than realizing why it's failing.  Newspapers are failing because they charge too much for ad space.  According to a NY Times report (that out of respect for Dipshit Posner I won't link to) 53\% of their ad space is going unsold.  In any other industry you'd discount the rate and try to get a higher volume of ad space sold.  But for trully ridiculous reasons Newspapers still think they can charge for the same ad space even with subscriptions on the decline.  And people are increasingly turning to the internet because the ability to contstantly update and follow stories makes it much better than reading daily newspapers.  Nowhere is this discrepancy more obvious than sports coverage.  Sure I could have a newspaper subscription and follow my team's success over a bowl of fruit loops everyday at breakfast or I can log onto ESPN and find out whether my team is winning or losing the game while it's still being played.  Which choice are most people who want to follow a team going to choose?

If we treated other technologies like we're starting to treat newspapers vs. the internet we would:
still be using telegraph machines instead of cell phone.
use explosive celuloid film instead of digital video
use horse drawn buggies instead of cars.
use handset printing instead of moveable type or better yet only release news via illuminated manuscripts.

Face it.  Internet is beating the pants off traditional newspapers b/c they are just better.  And internet thrives on linking.  All passing a law change like this would mean that websites would only link to materials that were published under non-traditional copyright agreements or released into the public domain.  IE. no one would link to traditional newspapers anymore, and it's not like people would then start buying newspaper subscriptions, so I'm quite certain that newspapers would make even less money than they do now.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this hilarious .
So newspapers ( which largeley get their news tips from people calling in for free ) are claiming it 's reporter salaries that make the bulk of the costs of running a newspaper , and not the costs of operating the gigantic printing presses etc .
Sure , and I 'll be looking at that land deal you have in Florida now .
Give me a break .
Following that same logic no newspaper should be allowed to quote people who make statements in a telelvised press conference b/c televising it IS publishing it , and therefore they 'd be guilty of a copyright violation .
But obviously we 've made a fair use exception if your goal is to write a news article .
Why would the same not apply on the web .
The real thing is $ $ $ .
I used to run a non-profit news website .
I was turned down for press credentials in most cases b/c I did n't have a paper that was sponsored via ad revenue .
this for example , at the time ( if not still currently ) was the rule even for the White House .
So I was n't given press credentials b/c I did n't have advertisers , and to the White House you 're not a real legitimate news gathering organization unless you have advertising revenue .
So it 's obvious that the Newspaper industry is the beneficiary of laws that favor them over amateur bloggers .
And that begs the issue , why ?
As in why are we trying to support the news industry rather than realizing why it 's failing .
Newspapers are failing because they charge too much for ad space .
According to a NY Times report ( that out of respect for Dipshit Posner I wo n't link to ) 53 \ % of their ad space is going unsold .
In any other industry you 'd discount the rate and try to get a higher volume of ad space sold .
But for trully ridiculous reasons Newspapers still think they can charge for the same ad space even with subscriptions on the decline .
And people are increasingly turning to the internet because the ability to contstantly update and follow stories makes it much better than reading daily newspapers .
Nowhere is this discrepancy more obvious than sports coverage .
Sure I could have a newspaper subscription and follow my team 's success over a bowl of fruit loops everyday at breakfast or I can log onto ESPN and find out whether my team is winning or losing the game while it 's still being played .
Which choice are most people who want to follow a team going to choose ?
If we treated other technologies like we 're starting to treat newspapers vs. the internet we would : still be using telegraph machines instead of cell phone .
use explosive celuloid film instead of digital video use horse drawn buggies instead of cars .
use handset printing instead of moveable type or better yet only release news via illuminated manuscripts .
Face it .
Internet is beating the pants off traditional newspapers b/c they are just better .
And internet thrives on linking .
All passing a law change like this would mean that websites would only link to materials that were published under non-traditional copyright agreements or released into the public domain .
IE. no one would link to traditional newspapers anymore , and it 's not like people would then start buying newspaper subscriptions , so I 'm quite certain that newspapers would make even less money than they do now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this hilarious.
So newspapers (which largeley get their news tips from people calling in for free) are claiming it's reporter salaries that make the bulk of the costs of running a newspaper, and not the costs of operating the gigantic printing presses etc.
Sure, and I'll be looking at that land deal you have in Florida now.
Give me a break.
Following that same logic no newspaper should be allowed to quote people who make statements in a telelvised press conference b/c televising it IS publishing it, and therefore they'd be guilty of a copyright violation.
But obviously we've made a fair use exception if your goal is to write a news article.
Why would the same not apply on the web.
The real thing is $$$.
I used to run a non-profit news website.
I was turned down for press credentials in most cases b/c I didn't have a paper that was sponsored via ad revenue.
this for example, at the time (if not still currently) was the rule even for the White House.
So I wasn't given press credentials b/c I didn't have advertisers, and to the White House you're not a real legitimate news gathering organization unless you have advertising revenue.
So it's obvious that the Newspaper industry is the beneficiary of laws that favor them over amateur bloggers.
And that begs the issue, why?
As in why are we trying to support the news industry rather than realizing why it's failing.
Newspapers are failing because they charge too much for ad space.
According to a NY Times report (that out of respect for Dipshit Posner I won't link to) 53\% of their ad space is going unsold.
In any other industry you'd discount the rate and try to get a higher volume of ad space sold.
But for trully ridiculous reasons Newspapers still think they can charge for the same ad space even with subscriptions on the decline.
And people are increasingly turning to the internet because the ability to contstantly update and follow stories makes it much better than reading daily newspapers.
Nowhere is this discrepancy more obvious than sports coverage.
Sure I could have a newspaper subscription and follow my team's success over a bowl of fruit loops everyday at breakfast or I can log onto ESPN and find out whether my team is winning or losing the game while it's still being played.
Which choice are most people who want to follow a team going to choose?
If we treated other technologies like we're starting to treat newspapers vs. the internet we would:
still be using telegraph machines instead of cell phone.
use explosive celuloid film instead of digital video
use horse drawn buggies instead of cars.
use handset printing instead of moveable type or better yet only release news via illuminated manuscripts.
Face it.
Internet is beating the pants off traditional newspapers b/c they are just better.
And internet thrives on linking.
All passing a law change like this would mean that websites would only link to materials that were published under non-traditional copyright agreements or released into the public domain.
IE. no one would link to traditional newspapers anymore, and it's not like people would then start buying newspaper subscriptions, so I'm quite certain that newspapers would make even less money than they do now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28516735</id>
	<title>This sounds like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246301640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the stupidest idea i have ever heard like some above said the death of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and any type of sharing of info. Does this person even understand how to use the internet he's born in 1939 he obviously doesn't know what hes talking about. Stupid honky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the stupidest idea i have ever heard like some above said the death of / .
and any type of sharing of info .
Does this person even understand how to use the internet he 's born in 1939 he obviously does n't know what hes talking about .
Stupid honky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the stupidest idea i have ever heard like some above said the death of /.
and any type of sharing of info.
Does this person even understand how to use the internet he's born in 1939 he obviously doesn't know what hes talking about.
Stupid honky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505391</id>
	<title>Monopoly</title>
	<author>marco.antonio.costa</author>
	<datestamp>1246214940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For people who still don't get that monopolies are always created by government coercion, here might be one fresh in the getting of yet another privilege.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For people who still do n't get that monopolies are always created by government coercion , here might be one fresh in the getting of yet another privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For people who still don't get that monopolies are always created by government coercion, here might be one fresh in the getting of yet another privilege.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505873</id>
	<title>Sign of intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246217940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It must be a valid comment. It has 72 words in one sentence! Wonder if he took a breath while saying that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It must be a valid comment .
It has 72 words in one sentence !
Wonder if he took a breath while saying that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must be a valid comment.
It has 72 words in one sentence!
Wonder if he took a breath while saying that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28512745</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1246282740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a confident answer:  when in doubt, freedom should prevail.  This especially applies to freedom of speech and of the press.  The burden of proof is on anyone who thinks that freedom should not prevail.  In other words, our fundamental inalienable rights are far more important than whether or not a newspaper goes out of business.</p></div><p>The right to own property, including the right to exclude others from use of your property, is a fundamental inalienable right, too. So, essentially, you're saying that one fundamental right outweighs another fundamental right. This could be so, but the burden of proof is back on you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a confident answer : when in doubt , freedom should prevail .
This especially applies to freedom of speech and of the press .
The burden of proof is on anyone who thinks that freedom should not prevail .
In other words , our fundamental inalienable rights are far more important than whether or not a newspaper goes out of business.The right to own property , including the right to exclude others from use of your property , is a fundamental inalienable right , too .
So , essentially , you 're saying that one fundamental right outweighs another fundamental right .
This could be so , but the burden of proof is back on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a confident answer:  when in doubt, freedom should prevail.
This especially applies to freedom of speech and of the press.
The burden of proof is on anyone who thinks that freedom should not prevail.
In other words, our fundamental inalienable rights are far more important than whether or not a newspaper goes out of business.The right to own property, including the right to exclude others from use of your property, is a fundamental inalienable right, too.
So, essentially, you're saying that one fundamental right outweighs another fundamental right.
This could be so, but the burden of proof is back on you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506599</id>
	<title>"Expanding copyright law"</title>
	<author>DanMelks</author>
	<datestamp>1246180200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For this reason, we should ban horseless carriages.
<br> <br>
"a US Court of Appeals judge, about the struggling <i>horse</i> industry. Posner explains why he thinks the <i>horse industry</i> will continue to struggle, and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion: "Expanding copyright law to bar access to <i>automobiles</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...."</htmltext>
<tokenext>For this reason , we should ban horseless carriages .
" a US Court of Appeals judge , about the struggling horse industry .
Posner explains why he thinks the horse industry will continue to struggle , and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion : " Expanding copyright law to bar access to automobiles .... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For this reason, we should ban horseless carriages.
"a US Court of Appeals judge, about the struggling horse industry.
Posner explains why he thinks the horse industry will continue to struggle, and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion: "Expanding copyright law to bar access to automobiles ...."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28514707</id>
	<title>No copyright in facts</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1246293480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A non-lawyer might miss the significance of the word "expansion".  Posner does not say that he is advocating the expansion of copyright law.  He is merely saying that it might be necessary to save newspapers.  Saying that "X might be necessary to achieve goal Y" does not imply that goal Y must be achieved.</p><p>Copyright does not extend to facts/ideas.  If I learn from the New York Times that Michael Jackson died, they can <b>NOT</b> use copyright law to prevent me from distributing that information.  While verbatim copying of their article would infringe their copyright, merely disseminating the underlying FACTS reported therein is absolutely <b>NOT</b> copyright infringement.  On this subject, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated:</p><blockquote><div><p>As a constitutional matter, copyright protects only those constituent elements of a work that possess more than a de minimis quantum of creativity.  As a statutory matter, 17 U.S.C.  101 does not afford protection from copying to a collection of facts that are selected, coordinated, and arranged in a way that utterly lacks originality.</p></div></blockquote><p>Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991).</p><p>Posner knows this.  That is why he clearly refers to his idea as an "expansion" of current copyright law.</p><p>The fundamental issue here is quite simple.  Copyright covers only expression, not facts.  And when it comes to <b>news</b> nobody really gives a shit about the expression.  For instance, I might want to know that Michael Jackson died, and how he died, but I don't really care about the words in between.  I don't need Hemingway or Tolstoy to tell me that he's dead.  I just want the facts.  And facts are uncopyrightable.</p><p>So Posner is really just stating the obvious:  Newspapers are screwed - unless we change the law to save them.  Should we change the law?  Hopefully, Posner would agree that THAT decision should be left to Congress.</p><p>In the meantime, if the New York Times doesn't want me deep-linking to their content, they can easily configure their webserver to redirect every incoming HTTP request with an HTTP-REFERRER (sp?) to their homepage. Or password protect it. Or don't put it on the fucking <b> <i>internet</i></b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A non-lawyer might miss the significance of the word " expansion " .
Posner does not say that he is advocating the expansion of copyright law .
He is merely saying that it might be necessary to save newspapers .
Saying that " X might be necessary to achieve goal Y " does not imply that goal Y must be achieved.Copyright does not extend to facts/ideas .
If I learn from the New York Times that Michael Jackson died , they can NOT use copyright law to prevent me from distributing that information .
While verbatim copying of their article would infringe their copyright , merely disseminating the underlying FACTS reported therein is absolutely NOT copyright infringement .
On this subject , the U.S. Supreme Court has stated : As a constitutional matter , copyright protects only those constituent elements of a work that possess more than a de minimis quantum of creativity .
As a statutory matter , 17 U.S.C .
101 does not afford protection from copying to a collection of facts that are selected , coordinated , and arranged in a way that utterly lacks originality.Feist Publications , Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. , Inc. , 499 U.S. 340 ( U.S. 1991 ) .Posner knows this .
That is why he clearly refers to his idea as an " expansion " of current copyright law.The fundamental issue here is quite simple .
Copyright covers only expression , not facts .
And when it comes to news nobody really gives a shit about the expression .
For instance , I might want to know that Michael Jackson died , and how he died , but I do n't really care about the words in between .
I do n't need Hemingway or Tolstoy to tell me that he 's dead .
I just want the facts .
And facts are uncopyrightable.So Posner is really just stating the obvious : Newspapers are screwed - unless we change the law to save them .
Should we change the law ?
Hopefully , Posner would agree that THAT decision should be left to Congress.In the meantime , if the New York Times does n't want me deep-linking to their content , they can easily configure their webserver to redirect every incoming HTTP request with an HTTP-REFERRER ( sp ?
) to their homepage .
Or password protect it .
Or do n't put it on the fucking internet . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A non-lawyer might miss the significance of the word "expansion".
Posner does not say that he is advocating the expansion of copyright law.
He is merely saying that it might be necessary to save newspapers.
Saying that "X might be necessary to achieve goal Y" does not imply that goal Y must be achieved.Copyright does not extend to facts/ideas.
If I learn from the New York Times that Michael Jackson died, they can NOT use copyright law to prevent me from distributing that information.
While verbatim copying of their article would infringe their copyright, merely disseminating the underlying FACTS reported therein is absolutely NOT copyright infringement.
On this subject, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated:As a constitutional matter, copyright protects only those constituent elements of a work that possess more than a de minimis quantum of creativity.
As a statutory matter, 17 U.S.C.
101 does not afford protection from copying to a collection of facts that are selected, coordinated, and arranged in a way that utterly lacks originality.Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991).Posner knows this.
That is why he clearly refers to his idea as an "expansion" of current copyright law.The fundamental issue here is quite simple.
Copyright covers only expression, not facts.
And when it comes to news nobody really gives a shit about the expression.
For instance, I might want to know that Michael Jackson died, and how he died, but I don't really care about the words in between.
I don't need Hemingway or Tolstoy to tell me that he's dead.
I just want the facts.
And facts are uncopyrightable.So Posner is really just stating the obvious:  Newspapers are screwed - unless we change the law to save them.
Should we change the law?
Hopefully, Posner would agree that THAT decision should be left to Congress.In the meantime, if the New York Times doesn't want me deep-linking to their content, they can easily configure their webserver to redirect every incoming HTTP request with an HTTP-REFERRER (sp?
) to their homepage.
Or password protect it.
Or don't put it on the fucking  internet ..
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505437</id>
	<title>They really want to be part of the "Dark" web?</title>
	<author>Gooba42</author>
	<datestamp>1246215240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the print media thinks that they'll benefit from the loss of the digital equivalent of word-of-mouth advertising? Isn't becoming invisible the last thing you want your website to do?</p><p>That's insane but we should let them have it. Any company who understands the internet will modify their copyright license terms to circumvent this ridiculousness and any company that doesn't just has to search for referrer=anything-at-all and deny everyone from viewing their content unless they actually bookmarked or manually entered the URL in the browser.</p><p>I don't really savour the idea of the death of "real" media, central control is bad but having actual life-long students of journalism working the stories is good. If media companies decide that they won't go where the market is leading them, that's their decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the print media thinks that they 'll benefit from the loss of the digital equivalent of word-of-mouth advertising ?
Is n't becoming invisible the last thing you want your website to do ? That 's insane but we should let them have it .
Any company who understands the internet will modify their copyright license terms to circumvent this ridiculousness and any company that does n't just has to search for referrer = anything-at-all and deny everyone from viewing their content unless they actually bookmarked or manually entered the URL in the browser.I do n't really savour the idea of the death of " real " media , central control is bad but having actual life-long students of journalism working the stories is good .
If media companies decide that they wo n't go where the market is leading them , that 's their decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the print media thinks that they'll benefit from the loss of the digital equivalent of word-of-mouth advertising?
Isn't becoming invisible the last thing you want your website to do?That's insane but we should let them have it.
Any company who understands the internet will modify their copyright license terms to circumvent this ridiculousness and any company that doesn't just has to search for referrer=anything-at-all and deny everyone from viewing their content unless they actually bookmarked or manually entered the URL in the browser.I don't really savour the idea of the death of "real" media, central control is bad but having actual life-long students of journalism working the stories is good.
If media companies decide that they won't go where the market is leading them, that's their decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505663</id>
	<title>Re:They really want to be part of the "Dark" web?</title>
	<author>afxgrin</author>
	<datestamp>1246216560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There should just be a "robots.txt" or an extension to robots.txt for automated news aggregation sites.  If the news service doesn't want it's news aggregated with everyone elses news services, sites like Googles News should respect that.  They obviously want to still be indexed by Google, but to have there news articles copy-pasta'd to the front of Google News is a whole other thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should just be a " robots.txt " or an extension to robots.txt for automated news aggregation sites .
If the news service does n't want it 's news aggregated with everyone elses news services , sites like Googles News should respect that .
They obviously want to still be indexed by Google , but to have there news articles copy-pasta 'd to the front of Google News is a whole other thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should just be a "robots.txt" or an extension to robots.txt for automated news aggregation sites.
If the news service doesn't want it's news aggregated with everyone elses news services, sites like Googles News should respect that.
They obviously want to still be indexed by Google, but to have there news articles copy-pasta'd to the front of Google News is a whole other thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505703</id>
	<title>SSDD</title>
	<author>SomeGuyFromCA</author>
	<datestamp>1246216800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judge doesn't get tech, nothing to see here. Move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judge does n't get tech , nothing to see here .
Move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judge doesn't get tech, nothing to see here.
Move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505459</id>
	<title>Judges can 'Think' what they like.</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1246215360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judges can 'think' whatever they like.  However, so can any other random citizen.  If there are laws in place that make linking to Copyrighted Material illegal, then if a case comes before said judge, s/he can rule in that fashion.  If that's how the law is written, of course.</p><p>Otherwise, the judge can lobby his representatives and senators just like the rest of us can.</p><p>No judge has any role beyond that of any other random citizen in enacting laws.  There's this thing called separation of powers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judges can 'think ' whatever they like .
However , so can any other random citizen .
If there are laws in place that make linking to Copyrighted Material illegal , then if a case comes before said judge , s/he can rule in that fashion .
If that 's how the law is written , of course.Otherwise , the judge can lobby his representatives and senators just like the rest of us can.No judge has any role beyond that of any other random citizen in enacting laws .
There 's this thing called separation of powers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judges can 'think' whatever they like.
However, so can any other random citizen.
If there are laws in place that make linking to Copyrighted Material illegal, then if a case comes before said judge, s/he can rule in that fashion.
If that's how the law is written, of course.Otherwise, the judge can lobby his representatives and senators just like the rest of us can.No judge has any role beyond that of any other random citizen in enacting laws.
There's this thing called separation of powers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506429</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1246222020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's even simpler than that.  The Internet is an <i>information distribution</i> medium.  It's not a money-making medium, or a marketing data gathering medium, or a international press service medium.  People use it because it's a quick and convenient way to get and spread information - quicker and more convenient than older media.  If you try to make parts of it slower and less convenient, people will simply stop using those parts.  When friends ask me a technical how-to question, and I find that a nice youtube video that I was using to answer it was pulled because of a C&amp;D letter from the copyright holder, I don't write a letter to the copyright holder asking them for permission to use the video.  I just find a different but available video that explains it, and give them a link to that.
<br>
<br>
The rate at which information flows from an Internet site is not determined by the site's owners; it's determined by the site's <i>visitors</i>. Even if you were to pass and somehow enforce a law prohibiting linking w/o the copyright holder's consent, all that would happen is that copyright holders who gave linking consent up-front would flourish, while copyright holders who insisted on reviewing any link requests would wither and die.  Simply because I seriously doubt they could review all such requests before the story becomes yesterday's news.  The newspapers would still die (at least the ones insisting on controlling who links to them), and we in the U.S. would just be saddled with an unwieldy and likely unenforceable law that would impede our ability to take advantage of the Internet to the extent that the rest of the free world does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even simpler than that .
The Internet is an information distribution medium .
It 's not a money-making medium , or a marketing data gathering medium , or a international press service medium .
People use it because it 's a quick and convenient way to get and spread information - quicker and more convenient than older media .
If you try to make parts of it slower and less convenient , people will simply stop using those parts .
When friends ask me a technical how-to question , and I find that a nice youtube video that I was using to answer it was pulled because of a C&amp;D letter from the copyright holder , I do n't write a letter to the copyright holder asking them for permission to use the video .
I just find a different but available video that explains it , and give them a link to that .
The rate at which information flows from an Internet site is not determined by the site 's owners ; it 's determined by the site 's visitors .
Even if you were to pass and somehow enforce a law prohibiting linking w/o the copyright holder 's consent , all that would happen is that copyright holders who gave linking consent up-front would flourish , while copyright holders who insisted on reviewing any link requests would wither and die .
Simply because I seriously doubt they could review all such requests before the story becomes yesterday 's news .
The newspapers would still die ( at least the ones insisting on controlling who links to them ) , and we in the U.S. would just be saddled with an unwieldy and likely unenforceable law that would impede our ability to take advantage of the Internet to the extent that the rest of the free world does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even simpler than that.
The Internet is an information distribution medium.
It's not a money-making medium, or a marketing data gathering medium, or a international press service medium.
People use it because it's a quick and convenient way to get and spread information - quicker and more convenient than older media.
If you try to make parts of it slower and less convenient, people will simply stop using those parts.
When friends ask me a technical how-to question, and I find that a nice youtube video that I was using to answer it was pulled because of a C&amp;D letter from the copyright holder, I don't write a letter to the copyright holder asking them for permission to use the video.
I just find a different but available video that explains it, and give them a link to that.
The rate at which information flows from an Internet site is not determined by the site's owners; it's determined by the site's visitors.
Even if you were to pass and somehow enforce a law prohibiting linking w/o the copyright holder's consent, all that would happen is that copyright holders who gave linking consent up-front would flourish, while copyright holders who insisted on reviewing any link requests would wither and die.
Simply because I seriously doubt they could review all such requests before the story becomes yesterday's news.
The newspapers would still die (at least the ones insisting on controlling who links to them), and we in the U.S. would just be saddled with an unwieldy and likely unenforceable law that would impede our ability to take advantage of the Internet to the extent that the rest of the free world does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506551</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246179840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read his argument, but I do not understand it. If newspapers need money to survive, then let them charge for online access (and then, obviously, any links to their articles would require that). If they make it available online for free, then I do not see how external links would change anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read his argument , but I do not understand it .
If newspapers need money to survive , then let them charge for online access ( and then , obviously , any links to their articles would require that ) .
If they make it available online for free , then I do not see how external links would change anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read his argument, but I do not understand it.
If newspapers need money to survive, then let them charge for online access (and then, obviously, any links to their articles would require that).
If they make it available online for free, then I do not see how external links would change anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505689</id>
	<title>Outrageous</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1246216740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While there may be a credible argument that internet via craigslist, et al, have been eating away at newspaper revenue, this claim that deep linking is a big problem I think is really absurd. If anything, deep linking, improves advertiser exposure as users click on a link to be transported to a newspapers website. The benefit and ad exposure to the newspaper is quite the same as if the user had entered the article from the newspapers own main index page. This just seems to be an Orwellian attempt to censor the internet and expand tyranical powers. If a newspaper were really concerned about the financial issues, maybe they should provide some premium online subscription option and password protect their content. THe idea of banning linking is totally unnecessary, since the newspapers if they wished could password protect, and in fact, unconstitutional violation of free speech, similar to banning citations in written material.</p><p>I would also suggest that, a solution best for all users is allow for an alliance or cooperative of newspapers nationally, a recipricol agreement between them that when one purchases a subscription to the local newspaper, they also get access to other newspapers around the country as well. This preserves the benefits of the internet to be able to access information easily coming from everywhere, and makes it affordable, given the thousands of news sources, its impossible to subscribe to each one. There can be 'low income' and 'consumer' plans which are targeted at the affordability in the consumer market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While there may be a credible argument that internet via craigslist , et al , have been eating away at newspaper revenue , this claim that deep linking is a big problem I think is really absurd .
If anything , deep linking , improves advertiser exposure as users click on a link to be transported to a newspapers website .
The benefit and ad exposure to the newspaper is quite the same as if the user had entered the article from the newspapers own main index page .
This just seems to be an Orwellian attempt to censor the internet and expand tyranical powers .
If a newspaper were really concerned about the financial issues , maybe they should provide some premium online subscription option and password protect their content .
THe idea of banning linking is totally unnecessary , since the newspapers if they wished could password protect , and in fact , unconstitutional violation of free speech , similar to banning citations in written material.I would also suggest that , a solution best for all users is allow for an alliance or cooperative of newspapers nationally , a recipricol agreement between them that when one purchases a subscription to the local newspaper , they also get access to other newspapers around the country as well .
This preserves the benefits of the internet to be able to access information easily coming from everywhere , and makes it affordable , given the thousands of news sources , its impossible to subscribe to each one .
There can be 'low income ' and 'consumer ' plans which are targeted at the affordability in the consumer market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While there may be a credible argument that internet via craigslist, et al, have been eating away at newspaper revenue, this claim that deep linking is a big problem I think is really absurd.
If anything, deep linking, improves advertiser exposure as users click on a link to be transported to a newspapers website.
The benefit and ad exposure to the newspaper is quite the same as if the user had entered the article from the newspapers own main index page.
This just seems to be an Orwellian attempt to censor the internet and expand tyranical powers.
If a newspaper were really concerned about the financial issues, maybe they should provide some premium online subscription option and password protect their content.
THe idea of banning linking is totally unnecessary, since the newspapers if they wished could password protect, and in fact, unconstitutional violation of free speech, similar to banning citations in written material.I would also suggest that, a solution best for all users is allow for an alliance or cooperative of newspapers nationally, a recipricol agreement between them that when one purchases a subscription to the local newspaper, they also get access to other newspapers around the country as well.
This preserves the benefits of the internet to be able to access information easily coming from everywhere, and makes it affordable, given the thousands of news sources, its impossible to subscribe to each one.
There can be 'low income' and 'consumer' plans which are targeted at the affordability in the consumer market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507391</id>
	<title>Money making</title>
	<author>jimshatt</author>
	<datestamp>1246187160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Create webpage containing public domain content<br>
2. Have it linked to<br>
3. Change content to copyrighted content<br>
4. Sue<br>
5. Profit<br>
<br>
No ??? necessary</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Create webpage containing public domain content 2 .
Have it linked to 3 .
Change content to copyrighted content 4 .
Sue 5 .
Profit No ? ? ?
necessary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Create webpage containing public domain content
2.
Have it linked to
3.
Change content to copyrighted content
4.
Sue
5.
Profit

No ???
necessary</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505707</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246216860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason we should hold such quick conclusions suspect is that they do not rely on a careful analysis of the facts. He wasn't suggesting a broad corporate right to profit. He was pointing out the very real danger that this country's free press (you may remember them from every important event in the history of the nation) might be destroyed by the Internet, which typically relies on print sources for its primary investigation.</p><p>The problem is that the economics of the web do not support the sort of decentralized journalism that's embodied in newspapers. That would require more staff than most web sites can muster. So they either buy their news from Reuters or the AP, or they just comment on what was said elsewhere.</p><p>I disagree with his solution on practical grounds, though. The value of the web is in hyperlinking. We need, instead, to find a way to transition journalists from dead trees to the Web in ways that don't drive them into poverty. But let's not pretend that that's an easy problem to solve that everyone will agree is tractable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason we should hold such quick conclusions suspect is that they do not rely on a careful analysis of the facts .
He was n't suggesting a broad corporate right to profit .
He was pointing out the very real danger that this country 's free press ( you may remember them from every important event in the history of the nation ) might be destroyed by the Internet , which typically relies on print sources for its primary investigation.The problem is that the economics of the web do not support the sort of decentralized journalism that 's embodied in newspapers .
That would require more staff than most web sites can muster .
So they either buy their news from Reuters or the AP , or they just comment on what was said elsewhere.I disagree with his solution on practical grounds , though .
The value of the web is in hyperlinking .
We need , instead , to find a way to transition journalists from dead trees to the Web in ways that do n't drive them into poverty .
But let 's not pretend that that 's an easy problem to solve that everyone will agree is tractable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason we should hold such quick conclusions suspect is that they do not rely on a careful analysis of the facts.
He wasn't suggesting a broad corporate right to profit.
He was pointing out the very real danger that this country's free press (you may remember them from every important event in the history of the nation) might be destroyed by the Internet, which typically relies on print sources for its primary investigation.The problem is that the economics of the web do not support the sort of decentralized journalism that's embodied in newspapers.
That would require more staff than most web sites can muster.
So they either buy their news from Reuters or the AP, or they just comment on what was said elsewhere.I disagree with his solution on practical grounds, though.
The value of the web is in hyperlinking.
We need, instead, to find a way to transition journalists from dead trees to the Web in ways that don't drive them into poverty.
But let's not pretend that that's an easy problem to solve that everyone will agree is tractable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505653</id>
	<title>site would never get any traffic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246216560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well fuck them anyhow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well fuck them anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well fuck them anyhow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28513303</id>
	<title>In a related story....</title>
	<author>jbdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1246286580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reed-Elsevier announced, beginning July 4th of this year, a new licensing structure for Lexis-Nexis articles cited as precedent in court cases. "We expect volume discounting to keep the cost per cite down to $10,000 per case, per judge, and per referencing attorney", a Reed spokesman said.</p><p>Hey, it could happen, given Judge Posner's reasoning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reed-Elsevier announced , beginning July 4th of this year , a new licensing structure for Lexis-Nexis articles cited as precedent in court cases .
" We expect volume discounting to keep the cost per cite down to $ 10,000 per case , per judge , and per referencing attorney " , a Reed spokesman said.Hey , it could happen , given Judge Posner 's reasoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reed-Elsevier announced, beginning July 4th of this year, a new licensing structure for Lexis-Nexis articles cited as precedent in court cases.
"We expect volume discounting to keep the cost per cite down to $10,000 per case, per judge, and per referencing attorney", a Reed spokesman said.Hey, it could happen, given Judge Posner's reasoning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28509443</id>
	<title>Dear Judge Dinosaur,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would seem that while your Honor's sympathy towards the fledgling paper industry is indeed honorable thy judgment is sorely misguided.</p><p>Out with the old, in with the new and improved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem that while your Honor 's sympathy towards the fledgling paper industry is indeed honorable thy judgment is sorely misguided.Out with the old , in with the new and improved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem that while your Honor's sympathy towards the fledgling paper industry is indeed honorable thy judgment is sorely misguided.Out with the old, in with the new and improved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506625</id>
	<title>Summary</title>
	<author>HCaulfield</author>
	<datestamp>1246180440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually-insightful judge thinks out loud on his blog, shows he doesn't "get" the Web, makes tentative suggestion to stretch copyright to cover paraphrasing and linking, is skeletonized by bloggers in under 60 seconds.</p><p>On the other hand, of <em>course</em> he's making economic arguments about copyright: the whole two-hundred-year-old justification for copyright is that we chip away a bit at my right to repeat what you wrote in hopes that it'll give you an incentive to write more and better stuff, which makes everyone better off on the whole.  When copyright implementation doesn't lead to broad economic rewards, there's no justification for it.</p><p>The real WTF here is... wait, wrong site.  What's actually wrong with Posner's post is that he just doesn't understand why newspapers are dying: it's because they suck.  The reporters are ignorant and biased, the editors are worse, the readers have never been the ones really paying the bills, actual news-gathering has been declining for decades, and when they piss off a chunk of their readers, that chunk can go elsewhere for their news now.  That the "elsewhere" is frequently of far better quality is just an extra stake through the heart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually-insightful judge thinks out loud on his blog , shows he does n't " get " the Web , makes tentative suggestion to stretch copyright to cover paraphrasing and linking , is skeletonized by bloggers in under 60 seconds.On the other hand , of course he 's making economic arguments about copyright : the whole two-hundred-year-old justification for copyright is that we chip away a bit at my right to repeat what you wrote in hopes that it 'll give you an incentive to write more and better stuff , which makes everyone better off on the whole .
When copyright implementation does n't lead to broad economic rewards , there 's no justification for it.The real WTF here is... wait , wrong site .
What 's actually wrong with Posner 's post is that he just does n't understand why newspapers are dying : it 's because they suck .
The reporters are ignorant and biased , the editors are worse , the readers have never been the ones really paying the bills , actual news-gathering has been declining for decades , and when they piss off a chunk of their readers , that chunk can go elsewhere for their news now .
That the " elsewhere " is frequently of far better quality is just an extra stake through the heart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually-insightful judge thinks out loud on his blog, shows he doesn't "get" the Web, makes tentative suggestion to stretch copyright to cover paraphrasing and linking, is skeletonized by bloggers in under 60 seconds.On the other hand, of course he's making economic arguments about copyright: the whole two-hundred-year-old justification for copyright is that we chip away a bit at my right to repeat what you wrote in hopes that it'll give you an incentive to write more and better stuff, which makes everyone better off on the whole.
When copyright implementation doesn't lead to broad economic rewards, there's no justification for it.The real WTF here is... wait, wrong site.
What's actually wrong with Posner's post is that he just doesn't understand why newspapers are dying: it's because they suck.
The reporters are ignorant and biased, the editors are worse, the readers have never been the ones really paying the bills, actual news-gathering has been declining for decades, and when they piss off a chunk of their readers, that chunk can go elsewhere for their news now.
That the "elsewhere" is frequently of far better quality is just an extra stake through the heart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505735</id>
	<title>Don't *refer* To Something?!</title>
	<author>blcamp</author>
	<datestamp>1246217040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I reading this correctly?</p><p>Don't link (or provide a reference) to something, simply because it's copyrighted material?</p><p>I see... so what's next? How about: don't recommend a book, since that's a verbal or printed "link"? Don't point to a painting? Don't share a photo? Don't let someone read a newspaper you're finished with? Don't play a CD in the car?</p><p>Ban all libraries?</p><p>I don't care that this guy is a judge. I don't care about any so-called "legal" angle to this...  this is plain and simple common sense that's being defied here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I reading this correctly ? Do n't link ( or provide a reference ) to something , simply because it 's copyrighted material ? I see... so what 's next ?
How about : do n't recommend a book , since that 's a verbal or printed " link " ?
Do n't point to a painting ?
Do n't share a photo ?
Do n't let someone read a newspaper you 're finished with ?
Do n't play a CD in the car ? Ban all libraries ? I do n't care that this guy is a judge .
I do n't care about any so-called " legal " angle to this... this is plain and simple common sense that 's being defied here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I reading this correctly?Don't link (or provide a reference) to something, simply because it's copyrighted material?I see... so what's next?
How about: don't recommend a book, since that's a verbal or printed "link"?
Don't point to a painting?
Don't share a photo?
Don't let someone read a newspaper you're finished with?
Don't play a CD in the car?Ban all libraries?I don't care that this guy is a judge.
I don't care about any so-called "legal" angle to this...  this is plain and simple common sense that's being defied here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508943</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Riachu\_11</author>
	<datestamp>1246201620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's soundly reject this concept, right now, that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world.</p></div><p>I'm afraid it's too late for that.  Look at the bank and auto bailouts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's soundly reject this concept , right now , that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world.I 'm afraid it 's too late for that .
Look at the bank and auto bailouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's soundly reject this concept, right now, that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world.I'm afraid it's too late for that.
Look at the bank and auto bailouts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28509841</id>
	<title>Libraries too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246210380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All libraries should be closed too.</p><p>And no more browsing at the bookstore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All libraries should be closed too.And no more browsing at the bookstore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All libraries should be closed too.And no more browsing at the bookstore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505467</id>
	<title>This assumes no more innovation</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1246215420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Providing no one ever has a new idea, the judge just might be right.  In the real world however, if there is a need for an independent news service, it will pop up all on it's own.  That is the nature of the internet, someone is always trying something new and when a need arises or an opportunity develops, there are 8 billion people in the world that can offer a solution. One of them is bound to have a good idea!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Providing no one ever has a new idea , the judge just might be right .
In the real world however , if there is a need for an independent news service , it will pop up all on it 's own .
That is the nature of the internet , someone is always trying something new and when a need arises or an opportunity develops , there are 8 billion people in the world that can offer a solution .
One of them is bound to have a good idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Providing no one ever has a new idea, the judge just might be right.
In the real world however, if there is a need for an independent news service, it will pop up all on it's own.
That is the nature of the internet, someone is always trying something new and when a need arises or an opportunity develops, there are 8 billion people in the world that can offer a solution.
One of them is bound to have a good idea!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506237</id>
	<title>Re:They really want to be part of the "Dark" web?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246220640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>life-long students of journalism</p></div><p>I agree; there aren't any journalists left, just a bunch of life-long amateurs throwing shiny things in front of the public eye.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>life-long students of journalismI agree ; there are n't any journalists left , just a bunch of life-long amateurs throwing shiny things in front of the public eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>life-long students of journalismI agree; there aren't any journalists left, just a bunch of life-long amateurs throwing shiny things in front of the public eye.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28514809</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>vuffi\_raa</author>
	<datestamp>1246293960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>isn't anything, I mean ANYTHING that is on the internet copyright of someone whether it be judged by TOS of the host (in the case of some social networking sites and such)or your own? In other words, wouldn't you not be able to link to anything on the internet at all from anywhere except your own site and your own content?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't anything , I mean ANYTHING that is on the internet copyright of someone whether it be judged by TOS of the host ( in the case of some social networking sites and such ) or your own ?
In other words , would n't you not be able to link to anything on the internet at all from anywhere except your own site and your own content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't anything, I mean ANYTHING that is on the internet copyright of someone whether it be judged by TOS of the host (in the case of some social networking sites and such)or your own?
In other words, wouldn't you not be able to link to anything on the internet at all from anywhere except your own site and your own content?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505701</id>
	<title>Close bookshops and Amazon then</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1246216800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is a bookseller's list or a library catalog if it is not "linking to copyrighted material"? What is an advertisement for a book that contains extracts or information about the contents if it is not a derivative work?<p>The ultimate revenge of the Internet would indeed be to bar all access to controlled copyright material, and all references to and advertisements for the same. Leave nothing available but material in the public domain, copyleft and suchlike. Such an Internet would be more useful than the present one. No advertisements for anything other than 3D solid products. Quicker and easier search for real information in the public domain, like that from NASA and the NIH. Kids downloading Mozart and Bach recordings by amateur orchestras.</p><p>Thinking about it, I want it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is a bookseller 's list or a library catalog if it is not " linking to copyrighted material " ?
What is an advertisement for a book that contains extracts or information about the contents if it is not a derivative work ? The ultimate revenge of the Internet would indeed be to bar all access to controlled copyright material , and all references to and advertisements for the same .
Leave nothing available but material in the public domain , copyleft and suchlike .
Such an Internet would be more useful than the present one .
No advertisements for anything other than 3D solid products .
Quicker and easier search for real information in the public domain , like that from NASA and the NIH .
Kids downloading Mozart and Bach recordings by amateur orchestras.Thinking about it , I want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is a bookseller's list or a library catalog if it is not "linking to copyrighted material"?
What is an advertisement for a book that contains extracts or information about the contents if it is not a derivative work?The ultimate revenge of the Internet would indeed be to bar all access to controlled copyright material, and all references to and advertisements for the same.
Leave nothing available but material in the public domain, copyleft and suchlike.
Such an Internet would be more useful than the present one.
No advertisements for anything other than 3D solid products.
Quicker and easier search for real information in the public domain, like that from NASA and the NIH.
Kids downloading Mozart and Bach recordings by amateur orchestras.Thinking about it, I want it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505457</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>dword</author>
	<datestamp>1246215360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>at Lessig.org back in 2004, he noted, "I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions." That goes for both sides in this debate.</p></div><p>You realize you just quoted him without his consent, right? Lucky you, it's licensed under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/" title="creativecommons.org">CCv3</a> [creativecommons.org]... otherwise he should've torched your ass!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>at Lessig.org back in 2004 , he noted , " I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions .
" That goes for both sides in this debate.You realize you just quoted him without his consent , right ?
Lucky you , it 's licensed under CCv3 [ creativecommons.org ] ... otherwise he should 've torched your ass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at Lessig.org back in 2004, he noted, "I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions.
" That goes for both sides in this debate.You realize you just quoted him without his consent, right?
Lucky you, it's licensed under CCv3 [creativecommons.org]... otherwise he should've torched your ass!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506037</id>
	<title>Being Brilliant Does Not Prevent Being Wrong</title>
	<author>ewhac</author>
	<datestamp>1246219200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plato was unquestionably brilliant, but even he thought the sun revolved around the earth.  It took Copernicus's work to break out of that error -- and oh by the way all the math suddenly got a hell of a lot simpler.

<p>So Lessig and Obama both have words of effusive praise for the man, and that's all very well, but to this armchair observer, Posner's suggestion is silly on its face for two reasons.  First: As I'm sure Posner well knows, <em>all</em> works are copyrighted upon the instant of their creation.  Every news article, every photo, every blog post, every tweet (twit?) -- all enjoy the full majesty of the copyright regime.  Does that mean that everyone who hopes to publish <em>anything</em> needs to first become conversant in copyright law and the current state of the art in copyright litigation?  Am I expected to append to every post, including this one, a hyperlink to a EULA?  Absurd.

</p><p>Even so, Posner's suggestion might have some arguable merit if it weren't for the other fact he appears to have skipped over -- copyrights today last effectively forever.  Once you obtain a copyright on Happy Fun Ball, it's yours until well past the day you die.  Copyrights throw up obstacles to creative expression.  These obstacles are there to afford the artisan some isolation and breathing room to exploit their work exclusively before anyone else can horn in on it.  But if copyright terms were more reasonable -- say, 28 years, as they were in the past -- then those obstacles would fall away over time and new creative forces could flow in and find and develop new ideas in the old material.  But with eternal copyrights, this never happens.  The obtacles that protect the creative artisan also hem him in and prevent him from moving anywhere else.  You get gridlock, and once that happens the equation then devolves into who has the most money to fend off litigation when they decide to just go ahead and do what they want, anyway (<i>*cough*Disney*cough*</i>).

</p><p>I'm not prepared to dismiss Posner entirely, however.  I think he may be making the same error that Lawrence Lessig appears to have made (and recently appears to have realized), which is to argue from within the framework of the existing copyright regime ("the sun revolves around the earth").  It's fairly well established at this point that the existing regime doesn't work all that well, and <em>cannot</em> work well unless you want to completely sacrifice the freedom and autonomy people enjoy over their own computers.  We need a Copernicus to come in and show us a new way of looking at things.  I have a few meager ideas along these lines, which could benefit from spirited debate with the likes of Lessig and Posner, but I'm just a part-time armchair troll on Slashdot, and clearly beneath anyone's notice.

</p><p>Schwab</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plato was unquestionably brilliant , but even he thought the sun revolved around the earth .
It took Copernicus 's work to break out of that error -- and oh by the way all the math suddenly got a hell of a lot simpler .
So Lessig and Obama both have words of effusive praise for the man , and that 's all very well , but to this armchair observer , Posner 's suggestion is silly on its face for two reasons .
First : As I 'm sure Posner well knows , all works are copyrighted upon the instant of their creation .
Every news article , every photo , every blog post , every tweet ( twit ?
) -- all enjoy the full majesty of the copyright regime .
Does that mean that everyone who hopes to publish anything needs to first become conversant in copyright law and the current state of the art in copyright litigation ?
Am I expected to append to every post , including this one , a hyperlink to a EULA ?
Absurd . Even so , Posner 's suggestion might have some arguable merit if it were n't for the other fact he appears to have skipped over -- copyrights today last effectively forever .
Once you obtain a copyright on Happy Fun Ball , it 's yours until well past the day you die .
Copyrights throw up obstacles to creative expression .
These obstacles are there to afford the artisan some isolation and breathing room to exploit their work exclusively before anyone else can horn in on it .
But if copyright terms were more reasonable -- say , 28 years , as they were in the past -- then those obstacles would fall away over time and new creative forces could flow in and find and develop new ideas in the old material .
But with eternal copyrights , this never happens .
The obtacles that protect the creative artisan also hem him in and prevent him from moving anywhere else .
You get gridlock , and once that happens the equation then devolves into who has the most money to fend off litigation when they decide to just go ahead and do what they want , anyway ( * cough * Disney * cough * ) .
I 'm not prepared to dismiss Posner entirely , however .
I think he may be making the same error that Lawrence Lessig appears to have made ( and recently appears to have realized ) , which is to argue from within the framework of the existing copyright regime ( " the sun revolves around the earth " ) .
It 's fairly well established at this point that the existing regime does n't work all that well , and can not work well unless you want to completely sacrifice the freedom and autonomy people enjoy over their own computers .
We need a Copernicus to come in and show us a new way of looking at things .
I have a few meager ideas along these lines , which could benefit from spirited debate with the likes of Lessig and Posner , but I 'm just a part-time armchair troll on Slashdot , and clearly beneath anyone 's notice .
Schwab</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plato was unquestionably brilliant, but even he thought the sun revolved around the earth.
It took Copernicus's work to break out of that error -- and oh by the way all the math suddenly got a hell of a lot simpler.
So Lessig and Obama both have words of effusive praise for the man, and that's all very well, but to this armchair observer, Posner's suggestion is silly on its face for two reasons.
First: As I'm sure Posner well knows, all works are copyrighted upon the instant of their creation.
Every news article, every photo, every blog post, every tweet (twit?
) -- all enjoy the full majesty of the copyright regime.
Does that mean that everyone who hopes to publish anything needs to first become conversant in copyright law and the current state of the art in copyright litigation?
Am I expected to append to every post, including this one, a hyperlink to a EULA?
Absurd.

Even so, Posner's suggestion might have some arguable merit if it weren't for the other fact he appears to have skipped over -- copyrights today last effectively forever.
Once you obtain a copyright on Happy Fun Ball, it's yours until well past the day you die.
Copyrights throw up obstacles to creative expression.
These obstacles are there to afford the artisan some isolation and breathing room to exploit their work exclusively before anyone else can horn in on it.
But if copyright terms were more reasonable -- say, 28 years, as they were in the past -- then those obstacles would fall away over time and new creative forces could flow in and find and develop new ideas in the old material.
But with eternal copyrights, this never happens.
The obtacles that protect the creative artisan also hem him in and prevent him from moving anywhere else.
You get gridlock, and once that happens the equation then devolves into who has the most money to fend off litigation when they decide to just go ahead and do what they want, anyway (*cough*Disney*cough*).
I'm not prepared to dismiss Posner entirely, however.
I think he may be making the same error that Lawrence Lessig appears to have made (and recently appears to have realized), which is to argue from within the framework of the existing copyright regime ("the sun revolves around the earth").
It's fairly well established at this point that the existing regime doesn't work all that well, and cannot work well unless you want to completely sacrifice the freedom and autonomy people enjoy over their own computers.
We need a Copernicus to come in and show us a new way of looking at things.
I have a few meager ideas along these lines, which could benefit from spirited debate with the likes of Lessig and Posner, but I'm just a part-time armchair troll on Slashdot, and clearly beneath anyone's notice.
Schwab</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506181</id>
	<title>humor?</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1246220160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever tagged this story as "humor" is, I think, missing the point...
</p><p>Or else the tag as "humor" is an attempt at humor...
In which case, about all I can say is that tagging it "funny" isn't funny, but calling it funny to call it funny is funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever tagged this story as " humor " is , I think , missing the point.. . Or else the tag as " humor " is an attempt at humor.. . In which case , about all I can say is that tagging it " funny " is n't funny , but calling it funny to call it funny is funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever tagged this story as "humor" is, I think, missing the point...
Or else the tag as "humor" is an attempt at humor...
In which case, about all I can say is that tagging it "funny" isn't funny, but calling it funny to call it funny is funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506653</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1246180680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if that weren't the case, their perceived right to do business is absolutely nothing compared to our real rights.</p></div><p>Well, they do have a real right to <i>do</i> business that should be protected.  Actually <i>succeeding</i> at business is their problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if that were n't the case , their perceived right to do business is absolutely nothing compared to our real rights.Well , they do have a real right to do business that should be protected .
Actually succeeding at business is their problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if that weren't the case, their perceived right to do business is absolutely nothing compared to our real rights.Well, they do have a real right to do business that should be protected.
Actually succeeding at business is their problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506403</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>xigxag</author>
	<datestamp>1246221840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of his Lessig-credentials, the fact is that his point is poorly thought out, for at least three reasons.</p><p>1) Newspapers are voluntarily on the internet because they feel that an online presence is important to them.  If, say, the New York Times doesn't like having aggregators leech off its content, it could easily shut down its website, end of story.  Then its content would be available only in print.  I wonder why the Times doesn't do that.  Or, less sarcastically/rhetorically, if Posner has given thought as to why the Times doesn't do that.  (And less extreme measures could be taken, such as making the site only available through the main page, making it subscription only, and so on.  The issue is still the same, purely technological remedies can be taken, but in most cases they aren't, for the simple reason that no newspaper wants to be consigned to the dustbin of history, so to speak.)</p><p>2) How is this law supposed to affect those outside of the US?  Is Posner's idea merely to cripple the US internet, or does he somehow think he can stop citizens in other nations from linking to US sites?  Or maybe that's OK in his estimation, since US papers don't derive substantial revenue from foreign readers.  In which case, we'll have a curious sort of situation where US web users will be linking to foreign papers to discuss them and vice-versa.  Either way, this won't stop people from going to the internet for news, it will just slow things down a bit</p><p>3) One of the largest reasons newspapers are losing revenue is because they've lost the classified ad wars with Craigslist.  That situation won't change by shutting down Google.</p><p>4) As long as we're throwing out absurd ideas willy-nilly, how about this?  Make the sales of offline print advertising tax-free.  That will have the effect of subsidizing the struggling newspaper industry without the government directly involving itself in the fourth estate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of his Lessig-credentials , the fact is that his point is poorly thought out , for at least three reasons.1 ) Newspapers are voluntarily on the internet because they feel that an online presence is important to them .
If , say , the New York Times does n't like having aggregators leech off its content , it could easily shut down its website , end of story .
Then its content would be available only in print .
I wonder why the Times does n't do that .
Or , less sarcastically/rhetorically , if Posner has given thought as to why the Times does n't do that .
( And less extreme measures could be taken , such as making the site only available through the main page , making it subscription only , and so on .
The issue is still the same , purely technological remedies can be taken , but in most cases they are n't , for the simple reason that no newspaper wants to be consigned to the dustbin of history , so to speak .
) 2 ) How is this law supposed to affect those outside of the US ?
Is Posner 's idea merely to cripple the US internet , or does he somehow think he can stop citizens in other nations from linking to US sites ?
Or maybe that 's OK in his estimation , since US papers do n't derive substantial revenue from foreign readers .
In which case , we 'll have a curious sort of situation where US web users will be linking to foreign papers to discuss them and vice-versa .
Either way , this wo n't stop people from going to the internet for news , it will just slow things down a bit3 ) One of the largest reasons newspapers are losing revenue is because they 've lost the classified ad wars with Craigslist .
That situation wo n't change by shutting down Google.4 ) As long as we 're throwing out absurd ideas willy-nilly , how about this ?
Make the sales of offline print advertising tax-free .
That will have the effect of subsidizing the struggling newspaper industry without the government directly involving itself in the fourth estate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of his Lessig-credentials, the fact is that his point is poorly thought out, for at least three reasons.1) Newspapers are voluntarily on the internet because they feel that an online presence is important to them.
If, say, the New York Times doesn't like having aggregators leech off its content, it could easily shut down its website, end of story.
Then its content would be available only in print.
I wonder why the Times doesn't do that.
Or, less sarcastically/rhetorically, if Posner has given thought as to why the Times doesn't do that.
(And less extreme measures could be taken, such as making the site only available through the main page, making it subscription only, and so on.
The issue is still the same, purely technological remedies can be taken, but in most cases they aren't, for the simple reason that no newspaper wants to be consigned to the dustbin of history, so to speak.
)2) How is this law supposed to affect those outside of the US?
Is Posner's idea merely to cripple the US internet, or does he somehow think he can stop citizens in other nations from linking to US sites?
Or maybe that's OK in his estimation, since US papers don't derive substantial revenue from foreign readers.
In which case, we'll have a curious sort of situation where US web users will be linking to foreign papers to discuss them and vice-versa.
Either way, this won't stop people from going to the internet for news, it will just slow things down a bit3) One of the largest reasons newspapers are losing revenue is because they've lost the classified ad wars with Craigslist.
That situation won't change by shutting down Google.4) As long as we're throwing out absurd ideas willy-nilly, how about this?
Make the sales of offline print advertising tax-free.
That will have the effect of subsidizing the struggling newspaper industry without the government directly involving itself in the fourth estate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505077</id>
	<title>So this implies...</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1246213080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...probably the death of Slashdot?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...probably the death of Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...probably the death of Slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508811</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1246200180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it. By any measure, Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion, one of the only judges that really 'get' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.</p><p>I'm hardly alone-- Lessig has noted that <a href="http://www.lessig.org/blog/2006/10/project\_posner.html" title="lessig.org">there isn't a federal judge I respect more, both as a judge and person</a> [lessig.org], and Posner was Obama's first choice when asked which sitting judge he would most like to argue before.</p><p>So you may disagree with this opinion-- I'm leaning that way too-- but it's worth fair consideration. Go and actually <a href="http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/06/the\_future\_of\_n.html" title="becker-posner-blog.com">read his post</a> [becker-posner-blog.com] before passing judgment. When he was <a href="http://www.lessig.org/blog/2004/08/a\_few\_closing\_thoughts.html" title="lessig.org">guest blogging about copyright law</a> [lessig.org] at Lessig.org back in 2004, he noted, "I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions." That goes for both sides in this debate.</p><p>Sort of a hack job by techcrunch actually.</p></div><p>Great comments - note that the blog in question is written by Gary Becker, a Nobel laureate in economics (also at Chicago) as well as Judge Posner.</p><p>While people have focused on a single comment in the blog; they miss the overall argument - how do you make it economically attractive for people to create independent news gathering organizations, so that only a few large corporations have control over what is presented as news.  The comment in questions poses - is there a way to ensure they are actually compensated for their work; and suggested a change in copyright law as away to do that.  While many may not agree with such a change; the bloggers are simply illustrating one way to make running a news organization financially viable, not saying that is the only, best or preferred solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear , I think we should at least consider it .
By any measure , Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion , one of the only judges that really 'get ' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.I 'm hardly alone-- Lessig has noted that there is n't a federal judge I respect more , both as a judge and person [ lessig.org ] , and Posner was Obama 's first choice when asked which sitting judge he would most like to argue before.So you may disagree with this opinion-- I 'm leaning that way too-- but it 's worth fair consideration .
Go and actually read his post [ becker-posner-blog.com ] before passing judgment .
When he was guest blogging about copyright law [ lessig.org ] at Lessig.org back in 2004 , he noted , " I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions .
" That goes for both sides in this debate.Sort of a hack job by techcrunch actually.Great comments - note that the blog in question is written by Gary Becker , a Nobel laureate in economics ( also at Chicago ) as well as Judge Posner.While people have focused on a single comment in the blog ; they miss the overall argument - how do you make it economically attractive for people to create independent news gathering organizations , so that only a few large corporations have control over what is presented as news .
The comment in questions poses - is there a way to ensure they are actually compensated for their work ; and suggested a change in copyright law as away to do that .
While many may not agree with such a change ; the bloggers are simply illustrating one way to make running a news organization financially viable , not saying that is the only , best or preferred solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it.
By any measure, Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion, one of the only judges that really 'get' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.I'm hardly alone-- Lessig has noted that there isn't a federal judge I respect more, both as a judge and person [lessig.org], and Posner was Obama's first choice when asked which sitting judge he would most like to argue before.So you may disagree with this opinion-- I'm leaning that way too-- but it's worth fair consideration.
Go and actually read his post [becker-posner-blog.com] before passing judgment.
When he was guest blogging about copyright law [lessig.org] at Lessig.org back in 2004, he noted, "I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions.
" That goes for both sides in this debate.Sort of a hack job by techcrunch actually.Great comments - note that the blog in question is written by Gary Becker, a Nobel laureate in economics (also at Chicago) as well as Judge Posner.While people have focused on a single comment in the blog; they miss the overall argument - how do you make it economically attractive for people to create independent news gathering organizations, so that only a few large corporations have control over what is presented as news.
The comment in questions poses - is there a way to ensure they are actually compensated for their work; and suggested a change in copyright law as away to do that.
While many may not agree with such a change; the bloggers are simply illustrating one way to make running a news organization financially viable, not saying that is the only, best or preferred solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505505</id>
	<title>Just one more way the world is changing...</title>
	<author>OpinionatedDude</author>
	<datestamp>1246215600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The one thing that is completely missed by the judge is that the death of corporate news is a Good Thing! (tm)

Big companies and the people who pay them off and/or own them have been telling us "what is going on" for far too long.

As the big news wires die off they will be replaced by a much more difficult to control/exploit wiki-type news reported/edited by people who were there and don't have some corporate/political axe to grind.

News is dead.  Long live the news.

jp</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one thing that is completely missed by the judge is that the death of corporate news is a Good Thing !
( tm ) Big companies and the people who pay them off and/or own them have been telling us " what is going on " for far too long .
As the big news wires die off they will be replaced by a much more difficult to control/exploit wiki-type news reported/edited by people who were there and do n't have some corporate/political axe to grind .
News is dead .
Long live the news .
jp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one thing that is completely missed by the judge is that the death of corporate news is a Good Thing!
(tm)

Big companies and the people who pay them off and/or own them have been telling us "what is going on" for far too long.
As the big news wires die off they will be replaced by a much more difficult to control/exploit wiki-type news reported/edited by people who were there and don't have some corporate/political axe to grind.
News is dead.
Long live the news.
jp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28510087</id>
	<title>It should also be forbidden...</title>
	<author>Samarian Hillbilly</author>
	<datestamp>1246212660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to give directions to a book store. After all this is indeed "linking to copyrighted material".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to give directions to a book store .
After all this is indeed " linking to copyrighted material " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to give directions to a book store.
After all this is indeed "linking to copyrighted material".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505817</id>
	<title>Legal citations?  Bibliographic references?</title>
	<author>JDS13</author>
	<datestamp>1246217580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would happen to human discourse if we banned bibliographic references and footnotes, which are, after all, links to copyrighted materials?</p><p>And banning paraphrases?  This could be used to squelch nearly all creative or derivative work.</p><p>How can anyone take this idea seriously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would happen to human discourse if we banned bibliographic references and footnotes , which are , after all , links to copyrighted materials ? And banning paraphrases ?
This could be used to squelch nearly all creative or derivative work.How can anyone take this idea seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would happen to human discourse if we banned bibliographic references and footnotes, which are, after all, links to copyrighted materials?And banning paraphrases?
This could be used to squelch nearly all creative or derivative work.How can anyone take this idea seriously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507729</id>
	<title>Re:Library card catalog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246189740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it would be the end of \_using\_ the Dewey Decimal Classification&#194;&#174; (DDC) system since it is itself copyrighted by Online Computer Library Center&#194;&#174; (OCLC).  All copyright rights in the Dewey Decimal Classification system are owned by OCLC. Dewey, Dewey Decimal Classification, DDC, OCLC and WebDewey are registered trademarks of OCLC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it would be the end of \ _using \ _ the Dewey Decimal Classification     ( DDC ) system since it is itself copyrighted by Online Computer Library Center     ( OCLC ) .
All copyright rights in the Dewey Decimal Classification system are owned by OCLC .
Dewey , Dewey Decimal Classification , DDC , OCLC and WebDewey are registered trademarks of OCLC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it would be the end of \_using\_ the Dewey Decimal ClassificationÂ® (DDC) system since it is itself copyrighted by Online Computer Library CenterÂ® (OCLC).
All copyright rights in the Dewey Decimal Classification system are owned by OCLC.
Dewey, Dewey Decimal Classification, DDC, OCLC and WebDewey are registered trademarks of OCLC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505967</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Raindance</author>
	<datestamp>1246218600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you; it's a pleasure to talk about this with someone who approaches a discussion with good faith.</p><p>I will say I tend to agree with you that Posner's suggestion to involve and expand copyright law in this situation may cause more problems than it solves; I'm not convinced that deep linking is protected by the speech/press clauses in the constitution, but I'm not at all certain that they're not, either. It seems problematic to wade into this with a change to copyright law and fair use rights that might be used to infringe upon free speech on the internet, with uncertain gain.</p><p>On the other hand, I think Posner's explanation of the situation is very apt, and I also think it exposes a real problem. Newspapers are in trouble. Extremely good things will be lost if we let them crash and burn-- perhaps this is inevitable, but if there are things we can do that will help newspapers without giving them any sort of unfair or rights-infringing advantage, we should consider them.</p><p><i>I also completely reject this concept (mentioned in your prior post) that the government should be worrying about any sort of "creation of the most good." All I want the government to do is to fulfill their duties as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, no more and no less.</i></p><p>I think a relevant point here is that the Constitution empowers the Congress to enact copyright laws specifically such as to maximize the common good, so to fulfill their duties as enumerated in the Constitution, they're required to consider what sorts of copyright laws create or preserve the most good. <i>"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"</i>.</p><p>Of course, copyright law has been so dramatically expanded and twisted from how it originally started out that I personally think it's difficult to constitutionally justify the current legal state of affairs, but I do think it's constitutionally defensible to say copyright law has a mandate to maximize the greatest good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you ; it 's a pleasure to talk about this with someone who approaches a discussion with good faith.I will say I tend to agree with you that Posner 's suggestion to involve and expand copyright law in this situation may cause more problems than it solves ; I 'm not convinced that deep linking is protected by the speech/press clauses in the constitution , but I 'm not at all certain that they 're not , either .
It seems problematic to wade into this with a change to copyright law and fair use rights that might be used to infringe upon free speech on the internet , with uncertain gain.On the other hand , I think Posner 's explanation of the situation is very apt , and I also think it exposes a real problem .
Newspapers are in trouble .
Extremely good things will be lost if we let them crash and burn-- perhaps this is inevitable , but if there are things we can do that will help newspapers without giving them any sort of unfair or rights-infringing advantage , we should consider them.I also completely reject this concept ( mentioned in your prior post ) that the government should be worrying about any sort of " creation of the most good .
" All I want the government to do is to fulfill their duties as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution , no more and no less.I think a relevant point here is that the Constitution empowers the Congress to enact copyright laws specifically such as to maximize the common good , so to fulfill their duties as enumerated in the Constitution , they 're required to consider what sorts of copyright laws create or preserve the most good .
" To promote the progress of science and useful arts , by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries " .Of course , copyright law has been so dramatically expanded and twisted from how it originally started out that I personally think it 's difficult to constitutionally justify the current legal state of affairs , but I do think it 's constitutionally defensible to say copyright law has a mandate to maximize the greatest good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you; it's a pleasure to talk about this with someone who approaches a discussion with good faith.I will say I tend to agree with you that Posner's suggestion to involve and expand copyright law in this situation may cause more problems than it solves; I'm not convinced that deep linking is protected by the speech/press clauses in the constitution, but I'm not at all certain that they're not, either.
It seems problematic to wade into this with a change to copyright law and fair use rights that might be used to infringe upon free speech on the internet, with uncertain gain.On the other hand, I think Posner's explanation of the situation is very apt, and I also think it exposes a real problem.
Newspapers are in trouble.
Extremely good things will be lost if we let them crash and burn-- perhaps this is inevitable, but if there are things we can do that will help newspapers without giving them any sort of unfair or rights-infringing advantage, we should consider them.I also completely reject this concept (mentioned in your prior post) that the government should be worrying about any sort of "creation of the most good.
" All I want the government to do is to fulfill their duties as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, no more and no less.I think a relevant point here is that the Constitution empowers the Congress to enact copyright laws specifically such as to maximize the common good, so to fulfill their duties as enumerated in the Constitution, they're required to consider what sorts of copyright laws create or preserve the most good.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".Of course, copyright law has been so dramatically expanded and twisted from how it originally started out that I personally think it's difficult to constitutionally justify the current legal state of affairs, but I do think it's constitutionally defensible to say copyright law has a mandate to maximize the greatest good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505757</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1246217160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Let's soundly reject this concept, right now, that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world.</i> <br> <br>No, but it is a role of the government to set and enforce the rules of play and the issue here is tweaking those rules. The conflict here is not between newspapers and online media but between those who gather the news and those who copy the news. The problem is not that "newspapers" are going out of business but that the news gathering is going out of business because news copying is eating into its profits to the point where it's not worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's soundly reject this concept , right now , that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world .
No , but it is a role of the government to set and enforce the rules of play and the issue here is tweaking those rules .
The conflict here is not between newspapers and online media but between those who gather the news and those who copy the news .
The problem is not that " newspapers " are going out of business but that the news gathering is going out of business because news copying is eating into its profits to the point where it 's not worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's soundly reject this concept, right now, that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world.
No, but it is a role of the government to set and enforce the rules of play and the issue here is tweaking those rules.
The conflict here is not between newspapers and online media but between those who gather the news and those who copy the news.
The problem is not that "newspapers" are going out of business but that the news gathering is going out of business because news copying is eating into its profits to the point where it's not worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28511235</id>
	<title>Advertisments</title>
	<author>prionic6</author>
	<datestamp>1246267380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people seem to like consuming ad-financed stuff. Why do you assume if you don't pay for access to something, it is free? It should be obvious that we all pay for "free-tv", "free" news sites and other ad-supported things when we buy the products that are advertised there.</p><p>When you pay directly for access, you have a choice. When you think it's free, they have already made you pay. And then you pay, even if you don't visit! It's effectively a private tax. The only way to not pay it is to watch for ads and then not buy what is advertised - seems unpractical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people seem to like consuming ad-financed stuff .
Why do you assume if you do n't pay for access to something , it is free ?
It should be obvious that we all pay for " free-tv " , " free " news sites and other ad-supported things when we buy the products that are advertised there.When you pay directly for access , you have a choice .
When you think it 's free , they have already made you pay .
And then you pay , even if you do n't visit !
It 's effectively a private tax .
The only way to not pay it is to watch for ads and then not buy what is advertised - seems unpractical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people seem to like consuming ad-financed stuff.
Why do you assume if you don't pay for access to something, it is free?
It should be obvious that we all pay for "free-tv", "free" news sites and other ad-supported things when we buy the products that are advertised there.When you pay directly for access, you have a choice.
When you think it's free, they have already made you pay.
And then you pay, even if you don't visit!
It's effectively a private tax.
The only way to not pay it is to watch for ads and then not buy what is advertised - seems unpractical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505431</id>
	<title>Library card catalog</title>
	<author>peektwice</author>
	<datestamp>1246215240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure that this also means the end of the Dewey Decimal system, since it links to copyrighted material.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that this also means the end of the Dewey Decimal system , since it links to copyrighted material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that this also means the end of the Dewey Decimal system, since it links to copyrighted material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507319</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246186680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's soundly reject this concept, right now, that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world.</p> </div><p>You must be new to America, we hope you enjoy your stay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's soundly reject this concept , right now , that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world .
You must be new to America , we hope you enjoy your stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's soundly reject this concept, right now, that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world.
You must be new to America, we hope you enjoy your stay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506459</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1246222320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think we should at least consider it. By any measure, Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion, one of the only judges that really 'get' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.</p></div><p>If he's the one Judge who stands above all others in technical matters, then I want all Judges to go through five years of mandatory Computer Science courses.  He's a #*\%$^&amp;#ing idiot.  Posner, you're #*\%\%#@ stupid. You may be a legal genius, but please rely on technical advisors before thinking you know anything about technology.<br>
Linking to something on the web is the exact equivalent to saying "Hey, look at that over there!" in meatspace.  If people want to prevent someone from pointing at their FOO in meatspace, they make a wall and allow only the people the want in (either charging admission or inviting just their friends).  Sometimes they even restrict cameras (although restricting printscreen on a https site can't happen).  What gets me tickled about this is that the web in its current incarnation has had 15 years of fame (companies started regularly advertising websites in television commercials in 1994-1996).  You'd think that the mentally competent among us would understand some of its basic concepts by now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we should at least consider it .
By any measure , Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion , one of the only judges that really 'get ' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.If he 's the one Judge who stands above all others in technical matters , then I want all Judges to go through five years of mandatory Computer Science courses .
He 's a # * \ % $ ^ &amp; # ing idiot .
Posner , you 're # * \ % \ % # @ stupid .
You may be a legal genius , but please rely on technical advisors before thinking you know anything about technology .
Linking to something on the web is the exact equivalent to saying " Hey , look at that over there !
" in meatspace .
If people want to prevent someone from pointing at their FOO in meatspace , they make a wall and allow only the people the want in ( either charging admission or inviting just their friends ) .
Sometimes they even restrict cameras ( although restricting printscreen on a https site ca n't happen ) .
What gets me tickled about this is that the web in its current incarnation has had 15 years of fame ( companies started regularly advertising websites in television commercials in 1994-1996 ) .
You 'd think that the mentally competent among us would understand some of its basic concepts by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we should at least consider it.
By any measure, Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion, one of the only judges that really 'get' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.If he's the one Judge who stands above all others in technical matters, then I want all Judges to go through five years of mandatory Computer Science courses.
He's a #*\%$^&amp;#ing idiot.
Posner, you're #*\%\%#@ stupid.
You may be a legal genius, but please rely on technical advisors before thinking you know anything about technology.
Linking to something on the web is the exact equivalent to saying "Hey, look at that over there!
" in meatspace.
If people want to prevent someone from pointing at their FOO in meatspace, they make a wall and allow only the people the want in (either charging admission or inviting just their friends).
Sometimes they even restrict cameras (although restricting printscreen on a https site can't happen).
What gets me tickled about this is that the web in its current incarnation has had 15 years of fame (companies started regularly advertising websites in television commercials in 1994-1996).
You'd think that the mentally competent among us would understand some of its basic concepts by now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507441</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246187520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many <b>tenants</b> slashdotters hold dear</p></div><p>Tenants live in premises.  Tenets are premises.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dearTenants live in premises .
Tenets are premises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dearTenants live in premises.
Tenets are premises.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505543</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1246215840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm sorry; on my initial reading I glossed over where you detailed you feel this infringes upon your rights of freedom of speech and of the press. I take back my criticism re: enunciating rights.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That you handle it this way is quite respectable and refreshing to see.  No joke and no sarcasm at all when I say thank you.</p><blockquote><div><p>I do think the ability to deep link to specific articles, etc, is important for a healthy public debate. I'm not certain linking to someone else's work is completely under the umbrella of speech, however, and would be protected under the speech/press protections.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I can approach that one from two angles.  One, the offline equivalent to a Web link is "hey, I read this book by this author, you should really go to the bookstore and check it out."  If the folks who want this were interested in consistency, they would want to make it illegal to recommend a book.  They don't do that because know it would be absurd.  Two, those copyright holders knew that hyperlinking is the very nature of the Web before they decided to put any information on it.  They still decided to put information on it.  Therefore, let them take responsibility for their decision.  I don't see any part of this that requires the use of the police power of government.
<br> <br>
I also completely reject this concept (mentioned in your prior post) that the government should be worrying about any sort of "creation of the most good."  All I want the government to do is to fulfill their duties as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, no more and no less.  That "most good" or "greater good" concept is far more dangerous than most people appreciate.  I'm sure Stalin felt that the Great Purge was "for the good of the land."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry ; on my initial reading I glossed over where you detailed you feel this infringes upon your rights of freedom of speech and of the press .
I take back my criticism re : enunciating rights .
That you handle it this way is quite respectable and refreshing to see .
No joke and no sarcasm at all when I say thank you.I do think the ability to deep link to specific articles , etc , is important for a healthy public debate .
I 'm not certain linking to someone else 's work is completely under the umbrella of speech , however , and would be protected under the speech/press protections .
I can approach that one from two angles .
One , the offline equivalent to a Web link is " hey , I read this book by this author , you should really go to the bookstore and check it out .
" If the folks who want this were interested in consistency , they would want to make it illegal to recommend a book .
They do n't do that because know it would be absurd .
Two , those copyright holders knew that hyperlinking is the very nature of the Web before they decided to put any information on it .
They still decided to put information on it .
Therefore , let them take responsibility for their decision .
I do n't see any part of this that requires the use of the police power of government .
I also completely reject this concept ( mentioned in your prior post ) that the government should be worrying about any sort of " creation of the most good .
" All I want the government to do is to fulfill their duties as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution , no more and no less .
That " most good " or " greater good " concept is far more dangerous than most people appreciate .
I 'm sure Stalin felt that the Great Purge was " for the good of the land .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry; on my initial reading I glossed over where you detailed you feel this infringes upon your rights of freedom of speech and of the press.
I take back my criticism re: enunciating rights.
That you handle it this way is quite respectable and refreshing to see.
No joke and no sarcasm at all when I say thank you.I do think the ability to deep link to specific articles, etc, is important for a healthy public debate.
I'm not certain linking to someone else's work is completely under the umbrella of speech, however, and would be protected under the speech/press protections.
I can approach that one from two angles.
One, the offline equivalent to a Web link is "hey, I read this book by this author, you should really go to the bookstore and check it out.
"  If the folks who want this were interested in consistency, they would want to make it illegal to recommend a book.
They don't do that because know it would be absurd.
Two, those copyright holders knew that hyperlinking is the very nature of the Web before they decided to put any information on it.
They still decided to put information on it.
Therefore, let them take responsibility for their decision.
I don't see any part of this that requires the use of the police power of government.
I also completely reject this concept (mentioned in your prior post) that the government should be worrying about any sort of "creation of the most good.
"  All I want the government to do is to fulfill their duties as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, no more and no less.
That "most good" or "greater good" concept is far more dangerous than most people appreciate.
I'm sure Stalin felt that the Great Purge was "for the good of the land.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28512209</id>
	<title>Richard Posner</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1246278120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Richard Posner is an interesting guy; the kind of guy who'd be great on a law school faculty but who's a little scary on the bench.  He thinks outside the box and is not afraid of taking positions most people think are wrong.</p><p>I've come across his name in reading about privacy.  Posner is famous for opposing the concept of right of privacy.  "Is there a right of privacy?" is the kind of question somebody should ask; having people seriously examine this question is good for society.  Having people on the bench who don't believe there is a right to privacy is a different matter.</p><p>So he's not the kind of person who would balk from turning things upside down if he had an internally consistent theory that supported it.  Not an activist judge, but something much worse: a philosopher judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard Posner is an interesting guy ; the kind of guy who 'd be great on a law school faculty but who 's a little scary on the bench .
He thinks outside the box and is not afraid of taking positions most people think are wrong.I 've come across his name in reading about privacy .
Posner is famous for opposing the concept of right of privacy .
" Is there a right of privacy ?
" is the kind of question somebody should ask ; having people seriously examine this question is good for society .
Having people on the bench who do n't believe there is a right to privacy is a different matter.So he 's not the kind of person who would balk from turning things upside down if he had an internally consistent theory that supported it .
Not an activist judge , but something much worse : a philosopher judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard Posner is an interesting guy; the kind of guy who'd be great on a law school faculty but who's a little scary on the bench.
He thinks outside the box and is not afraid of taking positions most people think are wrong.I've come across his name in reading about privacy.
Posner is famous for opposing the concept of right of privacy.
"Is there a right of privacy?
" is the kind of question somebody should ask; having people seriously examine this question is good for society.
Having people on the bench who don't believe there is a right to privacy is a different matter.So he's not the kind of person who would balk from turning things upside down if he had an internally consistent theory that supported it.
Not an activist judge, but something much worse: a philosopher judge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508195</id>
	<title>Re:Being Brilliant Does Not Prevent Being Wrong</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1246194420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Plato was unquestionably brilliant, but even he thought the sun revolved around the earth.</p></div><p>Psst -- moment of pedantry: it's conceivable Plato <i>may</i> have thought that, but even if he did it's very unlikely that he ever actually argued for it. Plato's written works display almost no interest in astronomy, and the references that are there seem to indicate second-hand knowledge at best. The only source for the notion that Plato was a geocentrist is a millennium later and, while not incredible, doesn't have an unusual degree of credibility; it's at least as likely that the source got muddled with Eudoxos, a contemporary of Plato. (Aristotle certainly did believe it, though.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plato was unquestionably brilliant , but even he thought the sun revolved around the earth.Psst -- moment of pedantry : it 's conceivable Plato may have thought that , but even if he did it 's very unlikely that he ever actually argued for it .
Plato 's written works display almost no interest in astronomy , and the references that are there seem to indicate second-hand knowledge at best .
The only source for the notion that Plato was a geocentrist is a millennium later and , while not incredible , does n't have an unusual degree of credibility ; it 's at least as likely that the source got muddled with Eudoxos , a contemporary of Plato .
( Aristotle certainly did believe it , though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plato was unquestionably brilliant, but even he thought the sun revolved around the earth.Psst -- moment of pedantry: it's conceivable Plato may have thought that, but even if he did it's very unlikely that he ever actually argued for it.
Plato's written works display almost no interest in astronomy, and the references that are there seem to indicate second-hand knowledge at best.
The only source for the notion that Plato was a geocentrist is a millennium later and, while not incredible, doesn't have an unusual degree of credibility; it's at least as likely that the source got muddled with Eudoxos, a contemporary of Plato.
(Aristotle certainly did believe it, though.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246213560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions." That goes for both sides in this debate.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I have a confident answer:  when in doubt, freedom should prevail.  This especially applies to freedom of speech and of the press.  The burden of proof is on anyone who thinks that freedom should not prevail.  In other words, our fundamental inalienable rights are far more important than whether or not a newspaper goes out of business.
<br> <br>
Let's soundly reject this concept, right now, that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world.  Newspapers are struggling because they are old technology that is being replaced by a new technology.  Even if that weren't the case, their perceived right to do business is absolutely nothing compared to our real rights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions .
" That goes for both sides in this debate .
I have a confident answer : when in doubt , freedom should prevail .
This especially applies to freedom of speech and of the press .
The burden of proof is on anyone who thinks that freedom should not prevail .
In other words , our fundamental inalienable rights are far more important than whether or not a newspaper goes out of business .
Let 's soundly reject this concept , right now , that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world .
Newspapers are struggling because they are old technology that is being replaced by a new technology .
Even if that were n't the case , their perceived right to do business is absolutely nothing compared to our real rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions.
" That goes for both sides in this debate.
I have a confident answer:  when in doubt, freedom should prevail.
This especially applies to freedom of speech and of the press.
The burden of proof is on anyone who thinks that freedom should not prevail.
In other words, our fundamental inalienable rights are far more important than whether or not a newspaper goes out of business.
Let's soundly reject this concept, right now, that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world.
Newspapers are struggling because they are old technology that is being replaced by a new technology.
Even if that weren't the case, their perceived right to do business is absolutely nothing compared to our real rights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507309</id>
	<title>rather unusual conclusion</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246186620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm no, considering who he is, its rather usual and predictable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm no , considering who he is , its rather usual and predictable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm no, considering who he is, its rather usual and predictable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505479</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>brxndxn</author>
	<datestamp>1246215480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should we consider it? It is a laughable. He is suggesting we change the laws in ways that severely limit individual freedom in a way that is completely impossible to enforce unless we completely change some core fundamental aspects of participation on the Internet. This man could be God for all I care.. If he says something stupid, it is stupid no matter what. We should consider his stupid opinion because he's a great man? That's an error in reasoning. (false authority fallacy)</p><p>Think about this.. He is trying to preserve an industry that is changing because of technology. Just because news as we know it is going through 'evolution pains' does not mean we should stick our stupid laws all over it. Leave our laws be. First Amendment is a pretty damn important law in this country..</p><p>There will ALWAYS be demand for news - and there will always be a demand for truth. By adding new laws that limit the ability to satisfy that demand better, we are actually regressing. Just because the news will change does not mean it will not be better. In fact, I would like to argue that most of our news is completely useless anyway. Let it be free. Let honest people report what they see.. and a group of similar opinions will allow people reading it to distinguish the truth. Right now, if Fox News wants to put their own screwed up twist, they can legally do that.. and they do it all the time! Screw them..</p><p>The newspapers screw the news also.. IMO, right now, there seems to be no good way to get the truth unless you read the news and the bloggers and the comments, and form an opinion of what really happened. So, if you cannot link to an article, how do you comment about it? How do you tell people what you're talking about? Maybe there should not be money in the news.. Let the market figure out how to handle the news.</p><p>And, further, fuck copyright. The laws make the copyright holders so card-stacked against the individual that people care less and less about it and the laws governing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should we consider it ?
It is a laughable .
He is suggesting we change the laws in ways that severely limit individual freedom in a way that is completely impossible to enforce unless we completely change some core fundamental aspects of participation on the Internet .
This man could be God for all I care.. If he says something stupid , it is stupid no matter what .
We should consider his stupid opinion because he 's a great man ?
That 's an error in reasoning .
( false authority fallacy ) Think about this.. He is trying to preserve an industry that is changing because of technology .
Just because news as we know it is going through 'evolution pains ' does not mean we should stick our stupid laws all over it .
Leave our laws be .
First Amendment is a pretty damn important law in this country..There will ALWAYS be demand for news - and there will always be a demand for truth .
By adding new laws that limit the ability to satisfy that demand better , we are actually regressing .
Just because the news will change does not mean it will not be better .
In fact , I would like to argue that most of our news is completely useless anyway .
Let it be free .
Let honest people report what they see.. and a group of similar opinions will allow people reading it to distinguish the truth .
Right now , if Fox News wants to put their own screwed up twist , they can legally do that.. and they do it all the time !
Screw them..The newspapers screw the news also.. IMO , right now , there seems to be no good way to get the truth unless you read the news and the bloggers and the comments , and form an opinion of what really happened .
So , if you can not link to an article , how do you comment about it ?
How do you tell people what you 're talking about ?
Maybe there should not be money in the news.. Let the market figure out how to handle the news.And , further , fuck copyright .
The laws make the copyright holders so card-stacked against the individual that people care less and less about it and the laws governing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should we consider it?
It is a laughable.
He is suggesting we change the laws in ways that severely limit individual freedom in a way that is completely impossible to enforce unless we completely change some core fundamental aspects of participation on the Internet.
This man could be God for all I care.. If he says something stupid, it is stupid no matter what.
We should consider his stupid opinion because he's a great man?
That's an error in reasoning.
(false authority fallacy)Think about this.. He is trying to preserve an industry that is changing because of technology.
Just because news as we know it is going through 'evolution pains' does not mean we should stick our stupid laws all over it.
Leave our laws be.
First Amendment is a pretty damn important law in this country..There will ALWAYS be demand for news - and there will always be a demand for truth.
By adding new laws that limit the ability to satisfy that demand better, we are actually regressing.
Just because the news will change does not mean it will not be better.
In fact, I would like to argue that most of our news is completely useless anyway.
Let it be free.
Let honest people report what they see.. and a group of similar opinions will allow people reading it to distinguish the truth.
Right now, if Fox News wants to put their own screwed up twist, they can legally do that.. and they do it all the time!
Screw them..The newspapers screw the news also.. IMO, right now, there seems to be no good way to get the truth unless you read the news and the bloggers and the comments, and form an opinion of what really happened.
So, if you cannot link to an article, how do you comment about it?
How do you tell people what you're talking about?
Maybe there should not be money in the news.. Let the market figure out how to handle the news.And, further, fuck copyright.
The laws make the copyright holders so card-stacked against the individual that people care less and less about it and the laws governing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28519973</id>
	<title>To paraphrase Morpheus:</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1246270440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Unfortunately, no one can be told where copyrighted material is. You have to find it for yourself."</p><p>If only this also meant the end of intrusive advertising by agents of the copyright holder. Taken to the extreme and off-line, those would be the only people authorized to tell you where any copyrighted material could be found to be consumed according to Judge Posner. You could tell people you saw a particular movie and recommend they see it too, but you couldn't tell them where: they'd have to find an official advertisement of showing times on their own.</p><p>Combined with the opinion than links to links to copyrighted material are themselves links to copyrighted material, you couldn't even tell someone where theaters showing movies could be found, or how they could find where they can find where they are found. So you can't tell them where to buy a newspaper.</p><p>What do you say? Should we end the free ride copyright holders get from word-of-mouth publicity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unfortunately , no one can be told where copyrighted material is .
You have to find it for yourself .
" If only this also meant the end of intrusive advertising by agents of the copyright holder .
Taken to the extreme and off-line , those would be the only people authorized to tell you where any copyrighted material could be found to be consumed according to Judge Posner .
You could tell people you saw a particular movie and recommend they see it too , but you could n't tell them where : they 'd have to find an official advertisement of showing times on their own.Combined with the opinion than links to links to copyrighted material are themselves links to copyrighted material , you could n't even tell someone where theaters showing movies could be found , or how they could find where they can find where they are found .
So you ca n't tell them where to buy a newspaper.What do you say ?
Should we end the free ride copyright holders get from word-of-mouth publicity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unfortunately, no one can be told where copyrighted material is.
You have to find it for yourself.
"If only this also meant the end of intrusive advertising by agents of the copyright holder.
Taken to the extreme and off-line, those would be the only people authorized to tell you where any copyrighted material could be found to be consumed according to Judge Posner.
You could tell people you saw a particular movie and recommend they see it too, but you couldn't tell them where: they'd have to find an official advertisement of showing times on their own.Combined with the opinion than links to links to copyrighted material are themselves links to copyrighted material, you couldn't even tell someone where theaters showing movies could be found, or how they could find where they can find where they are found.
So you can't tell them where to buy a newspaper.What do you say?
Should we end the free ride copyright holders get from word-of-mouth publicity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506301</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1246221180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it</p></div><p>No, we shouldn't.  Unreasonable BS like this should *not* be considered.</p><p>As a copyright holder, I propose that all suspected infringers should be immediately castrated by copyright holders, or that copyright holders should be allowed to enslave anyone they suspect of infringing their content.</p><p>Is that reasonable?  Fuck no.  But by your own argument, we must at least consider it.  So, how are you going to defend my proposal?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion, one of the only judges that really 'get' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.</p></div><p>If he's serious about this then he most certainly <i>does not</i> "get" anything about copyright.  Pretty much by definition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear , I think we should at least consider itNo , we should n't .
Unreasonable BS like this should * not * be considered.As a copyright holder , I propose that all suspected infringers should be immediately castrated by copyright holders , or that copyright holders should be allowed to enslave anyone they suspect of infringing their content.Is that reasonable ?
Fuck no .
But by your own argument , we must at least consider it .
So , how are you going to defend my proposal ? Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion , one of the only judges that really 'get ' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.If he 's serious about this then he most certainly does not " get " anything about copyright .
Pretty much by definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider itNo, we shouldn't.
Unreasonable BS like this should *not* be considered.As a copyright holder, I propose that all suspected infringers should be immediately castrated by copyright holders, or that copyright holders should be allowed to enslave anyone they suspect of infringing their content.Is that reasonable?
Fuck no.
But by your own argument, we must at least consider it.
So, how are you going to defend my proposal?Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion, one of the only judges that really 'get' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.If he's serious about this then he most certainly does not "get" anything about copyright.
Pretty much by definition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507155</id>
	<title>The death of 'Fair Use'</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1246185300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>College students, book writers, newspaper journalists, and even bloggers and Wikipedia, etc all cite copyrighted sources and <b>paraphrase</b> what they say to avoid plagiarism. That was covered in the Copyright Act as 'Fair Use', which does not seem to exist these days, based on this judge's opinions and views.</p><p>When you link or cite a source, you are not stealing copyrighted materials, when you paraphrase you are putting in your own words a summation of what that source was trying to say. In fact, you are promoting that copyrighted materials and may have caused some people to buy that copyrighted material based on what you wrote.</p><p>This is not the same as copying and pasting the entire copyrighted material, or even stealing the copyrighted material without paying.</p><p>In the USA we used to have something called Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press that would allow a person to put in their own words even what copyrighted material might say, as long as they cite their source or link to it. But now, Copyright Law is UnConstitutional if it restricts Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press if it is changed to the way this judge wants it changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>College students , book writers , newspaper journalists , and even bloggers and Wikipedia , etc all cite copyrighted sources and paraphrase what they say to avoid plagiarism .
That was covered in the Copyright Act as 'Fair Use ' , which does not seem to exist these days , based on this judge 's opinions and views.When you link or cite a source , you are not stealing copyrighted materials , when you paraphrase you are putting in your own words a summation of what that source was trying to say .
In fact , you are promoting that copyrighted materials and may have caused some people to buy that copyrighted material based on what you wrote.This is not the same as copying and pasting the entire copyrighted material , or even stealing the copyrighted material without paying.In the USA we used to have something called Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press that would allow a person to put in their own words even what copyrighted material might say , as long as they cite their source or link to it .
But now , Copyright Law is UnConstitutional if it restricts Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press if it is changed to the way this judge wants it changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>College students, book writers, newspaper journalists, and even bloggers and Wikipedia, etc all cite copyrighted sources and paraphrase what they say to avoid plagiarism.
That was covered in the Copyright Act as 'Fair Use', which does not seem to exist these days, based on this judge's opinions and views.When you link or cite a source, you are not stealing copyrighted materials, when you paraphrase you are putting in your own words a summation of what that source was trying to say.
In fact, you are promoting that copyrighted materials and may have caused some people to buy that copyrighted material based on what you wrote.This is not the same as copying and pasting the entire copyrighted material, or even stealing the copyrighted material without paying.In the USA we used to have something called Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press that would allow a person to put in their own words even what copyrighted material might say, as long as they cite their source or link to it.
But now, Copyright Law is UnConstitutional if it restricts Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press if it is changed to the way this judge wants it changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506961</id>
	<title>Linking isn't the problem</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1246183380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is simply taking articles verbatium from a newspaper (or other web site) and putting the content on your own site.</p><p>Doesn't happen?  Hah.  Of course it does.  Because as anyone under the age of 30 will tell you, once it is on the Internet it is free to use however you want.  So of course you are going to have anything and everything copied out from newapaper sites, CNN, USA Today, and whatever else there is.</p><p>Now is this what is destroying the value of news gathering in the US today?  I don't really think so.</p><p>However, this is going to be a continuing problem and it is doubtful that anyone under 30 today even comprehends why it might be a bad idea to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is simply taking articles verbatium from a newspaper ( or other web site ) and putting the content on your own site.Does n't happen ?
Hah. Of course it does .
Because as anyone under the age of 30 will tell you , once it is on the Internet it is free to use however you want .
So of course you are going to have anything and everything copied out from newapaper sites , CNN , USA Today , and whatever else there is.Now is this what is destroying the value of news gathering in the US today ?
I do n't really think so.However , this is going to be a continuing problem and it is doubtful that anyone under 30 today even comprehends why it might be a bad idea to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is simply taking articles verbatium from a newspaper (or other web site) and putting the content on your own site.Doesn't happen?
Hah.  Of course it does.
Because as anyone under the age of 30 will tell you, once it is on the Internet it is free to use however you want.
So of course you are going to have anything and everything copied out from newapaper sites, CNN, USA Today, and whatever else there is.Now is this what is destroying the value of news gathering in the US today?
I don't really think so.However, this is going to be a continuing problem and it is doubtful that anyone under 30 today even comprehends why it might be a bad idea to do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28514765</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>ittybad</author>
	<datestamp>1246293720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you can provide written consent from <b>lessig.org</b> for your blatant illegal usage of your link to their copyrighted "<i>Project Posner</i>" article and "<i>A Few Closing Thoughts</i>" article, and written consent from <b>becker-posner-blog.com</b> for your linking to "<i>The Future of N.html</i>", you are hereby ordered to pay restitution to said entities to the tune of $1,000 US per offense. I'm waiting for my check....Step 3: Profit (achieved)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you can provide written consent from lessig.org for your blatant illegal usage of your link to their copyrighted " Project Posner " article and " A Few Closing Thoughts " article , and written consent from becker-posner-blog.com for your linking to " The Future of N.html " , you are hereby ordered to pay restitution to said entities to the tune of $ 1,000 US per offense .
I 'm waiting for my check....Step 3 : Profit ( achieved ) ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you can provide written consent from lessig.org for your blatant illegal usage of your link to their copyrighted "Project Posner" article and "A Few Closing Thoughts" article, and written consent from becker-posner-blog.com for your linking to "The Future of N.html", you are hereby ordered to pay restitution to said entities to the tune of $1,000 US per offense.
I'm waiting for my check....Step 3: Profit (achieved) ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28522015</id>
	<title>Don't blame the players, blame the game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246280280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suing people for linking or paraphrasing online (news) content. Seriously? Isn't this essentially the ethos of shared knowledge?</p><p>So much for any kind of modern research papers... illegal. Good luck with that academia.</p><p>It isn't the fault of bloggers or news aggregators, it's the print news's business model. If you don't like the way the internet has developed around your ill-conceived vision of your papers online content, re-develop your site to work with modern trends; don't use the law to re-engineer the internet to work around you. Wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suing people for linking or paraphrasing online ( news ) content .
Seriously ? Is n't this essentially the ethos of shared knowledge ? So much for any kind of modern research papers... illegal. Good luck with that academia.It is n't the fault of bloggers or news aggregators , it 's the print news 's business model .
If you do n't like the way the internet has developed around your ill-conceived vision of your papers online content , re-develop your site to work with modern trends ; do n't use the law to re-engineer the internet to work around you .
Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suing people for linking or paraphrasing online (news) content.
Seriously? Isn't this essentially the ethos of shared knowledge?So much for any kind of modern research papers... illegal. Good luck with that academia.It isn't the fault of bloggers or news aggregators, it's the print news's business model.
If you don't like the way the internet has developed around your ill-conceived vision of your papers online content, re-develop your site to work with modern trends; don't use the law to re-engineer the internet to work around you.
Wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505699</id>
	<title>The thing to do next is...</title>
	<author>BlackBloq</author>
	<datestamp>1246216800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>         The main thing to do next is to patent stories. You see... someone can still creatively paraphrase or just re-write the story! We should stop the theft of news! Really news is creative...look at Fox news, most of their reporting uses a creative license... why not patent the license and get it over with? Now everyone could pay royalties for the use of a story! Awesome!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main thing to do next is to patent stories .
You see... someone can still creatively paraphrase or just re-write the story !
We should stop the theft of news !
Really news is creative...look at Fox news , most of their reporting uses a creative license... why not patent the license and get it over with ?
Now everyone could pay royalties for the use of a story !
Awesome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         The main thing to do next is to patent stories.
You see... someone can still creatively paraphrase or just re-write the story!
We should stop the theft of news!
Really news is creative...look at Fox news, most of their reporting uses a creative license... why not patent the license and get it over with?
Now everyone could pay royalties for the use of a story!
Awesome!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505731</id>
	<title>Why, Just Because!</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1246217040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you don't have any justification for your position other than "he's cool"?</p><p>You are willing to cast your own opinion aside in favor of one that clearly goes against the intent and the letter of the law, just because you like him?</p><p>Okay so I read his post.  He is making economic arguments over whether or not we have a right.</p><p>Since when are judges supposed to use economic arguments to decide whether or not we have a right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you do n't have any justification for your position other than " he 's cool " ? You are willing to cast your own opinion aside in favor of one that clearly goes against the intent and the letter of the law , just because you like him ? Okay so I read his post .
He is making economic arguments over whether or not we have a right.Since when are judges supposed to use economic arguments to decide whether or not we have a right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you don't have any justification for your position other than "he's cool"?You are willing to cast your own opinion aside in favor of one that clearly goes against the intent and the letter of the law, just because you like him?Okay so I read his post.
He is making economic arguments over whether or not we have a right.Since when are judges supposed to use economic arguments to decide whether or not we have a right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28509303</id>
	<title>Youtube</title>
	<author>Spc01</author>
	<datestamp>1246205700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next time someone links to youtube he/she should be arrested for linking to copyrighted material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time someone links to youtube he/she should be arrested for linking to copyrighted material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next time someone links to youtube he/she should be arrested for linking to copyrighted material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28510029</id>
	<title>Confused??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246212120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't everything written automatically copyrighted?  wouldn't this make all linking illegal unless something is explicitly stated as public domain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't everything written automatically copyrighted ?
would n't this make all linking illegal unless something is explicitly stated as public domain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't everything written automatically copyrighted?
wouldn't this make all linking illegal unless something is explicitly stated as public domain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505419</id>
	<title>Thats unpossible</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246215180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- without destroying the net<br>a) everything written essentially has creator copyright<br>b) making a link to anything else would then be violation</p><p>- internet assumption<br>a) if it is on the net you can link to it<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; this follows from the basic structure of the net as addressable content</p><p>If someone does not want a link made they had better not put it on the internet. Putting it on the internet essentially means permission to link.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- without destroying the neta ) everything written essentially has creator copyrightb ) making a link to anything else would then be violation- internet assumptiona ) if it is on the net you can link to it       this follows from the basic structure of the net as addressable contentIf someone does not want a link made they had better not put it on the internet .
Putting it on the internet essentially means permission to link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- without destroying the neta) everything written essentially has creator copyrightb) making a link to anything else would then be violation- internet assumptiona) if it is on the net you can link to it
      this follows from the basic structure of the net as addressable contentIf someone does not want a link made they had better not put it on the internet.
Putting it on the internet essentially means permission to link.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505587</id>
	<title>Trend towards Government-sponsored news</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1246216080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's worth noting the rise of Government-sponsored news sources.  Until a few years ago, few in the US paid any attention to what the Voice of America put out. Now, it's a widely aggregated news source, because it's free.  Google News aggregates the BBC, Xinhua, and Al-Jazeera, all of which are Government-controlled.  (The BBC and Al-Jazeera have some independence, but <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/world/middleeast/04jazeera.html" title="nytimes.com">it's limited.</a> [nytimes.com] Xinhua is the official output of the Chinese government.)
</p><p>
From the private sector, there's an endless supply of self-serving material, some of which gets picked up as "news". Google News sometimes thinks PR Newswire is a valid news source.
</p><p>
The independent sources remaining tend to be aimed at people with serious money.  The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and Bloomberg are still quite good, and are profitable.  Mass market print journalism, though, is dying.  The proud boasts in newspaper banners ring hollow today.  The San Francisco Examiner still says "Monarch of the Dailies" at the top of page one, but that was a long, long time ago.  San Francisco's mayor recently remarked that if the SF Chronicle stopped publishing its print edition, no one under 35 would notice.
</p><p>
Newspaper vending machines seem to be mostly empty now; it's not even worth filling them. Locally, I've seen some stickered with abandoned-car like notices from the city, which tell the newspaper "fill it with papers or we tow it away".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting the rise of Government-sponsored news sources .
Until a few years ago , few in the US paid any attention to what the Voice of America put out .
Now , it 's a widely aggregated news source , because it 's free .
Google News aggregates the BBC , Xinhua , and Al-Jazeera , all of which are Government-controlled .
( The BBC and Al-Jazeera have some independence , but it 's limited .
[ nytimes.com ] Xinhua is the official output of the Chinese government .
) From the private sector , there 's an endless supply of self-serving material , some of which gets picked up as " news " .
Google News sometimes thinks PR Newswire is a valid news source .
The independent sources remaining tend to be aimed at people with serious money .
The Wall Street Journal , The Economist , and Bloomberg are still quite good , and are profitable .
Mass market print journalism , though , is dying .
The proud boasts in newspaper banners ring hollow today .
The San Francisco Examiner still says " Monarch of the Dailies " at the top of page one , but that was a long , long time ago .
San Francisco 's mayor recently remarked that if the SF Chronicle stopped publishing its print edition , no one under 35 would notice .
Newspaper vending machines seem to be mostly empty now ; it 's not even worth filling them .
Locally , I 've seen some stickered with abandoned-car like notices from the city , which tell the newspaper " fill it with papers or we tow it away " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's worth noting the rise of Government-sponsored news sources.
Until a few years ago, few in the US paid any attention to what the Voice of America put out.
Now, it's a widely aggregated news source, because it's free.
Google News aggregates the BBC, Xinhua, and Al-Jazeera, all of which are Government-controlled.
(The BBC and Al-Jazeera have some independence, but it's limited.
[nytimes.com] Xinhua is the official output of the Chinese government.
)

From the private sector, there's an endless supply of self-serving material, some of which gets picked up as "news".
Google News sometimes thinks PR Newswire is a valid news source.
The independent sources remaining tend to be aimed at people with serious money.
The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and Bloomberg are still quite good, and are profitable.
Mass market print journalism, though, is dying.
The proud boasts in newspaper banners ring hollow today.
The San Francisco Examiner still says "Monarch of the Dailies" at the top of page one, but that was a long, long time ago.
San Francisco's mayor recently remarked that if the SF Chronicle stopped publishing its print edition, no one under 35 would notice.
Newspaper vending machines seem to be mostly empty now; it's not even worth filling them.
Locally, I've seen some stickered with abandoned-car like notices from the city, which tell the newspaper "fill it with papers or we tow it away".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505613</id>
	<title>Well, don't publish then</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1246216320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the only sane answer to the piracy whining of the music industry: Don't want people copying and distributing your music? Don't produce music! Problem solved. (Or find other ways to profit from people marketing and distributing your stuff without requiring money for it -- there *must* be ways to profit from people working for nothing.)</p><p>No, really. As long as the only answer to individual people complaining about abuse of data they publish on facebook (or whereever) seems to be "don't publish things you don't want others to know" this is the only answer you can give Big Content likewise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the only sane answer to the piracy whining of the music industry : Do n't want people copying and distributing your music ?
Do n't produce music !
Problem solved .
( Or find other ways to profit from people marketing and distributing your stuff without requiring money for it -- there * must * be ways to profit from people working for nothing .
) No , really .
As long as the only answer to individual people complaining about abuse of data they publish on facebook ( or whereever ) seems to be " do n't publish things you do n't want others to know " this is the only answer you can give Big Content likewise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the only sane answer to the piracy whining of the music industry: Don't want people copying and distributing your music?
Don't produce music!
Problem solved.
(Or find other ways to profit from people marketing and distributing your stuff without requiring money for it -- there *must* be ways to profit from people working for nothing.
)No, really.
As long as the only answer to individual people complaining about abuse of data they publish on facebook (or whereever) seems to be "don't publish things you don't want others to know" this is the only answer you can give Big Content likewise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506189</id>
	<title>Re:Posner</title>
	<author>mhs1973</author>
	<datestamp>1246220280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just one question: <br> <br> The freedom of whom? <br> This theory which this judge proposes (and nothing else is his somewhat backwards argument to be taken as), is that one should be able to control who reads ones posted content. <br> Point being that this can be legally solved by laws that no one who matters, or sees themselves to be above ( 3 letter agencies, I am looking at you ) will follow, or with a technological solution that would deny certain things to be reached that way (deep linking, somewhat). <br> But, oh wait, that solution exists already, or doesn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>just one question : The freedom of whom ?
This theory which this judge proposes ( and nothing else is his somewhat backwards argument to be taken as ) , is that one should be able to control who reads ones posted content .
Point being that this can be legally solved by laws that no one who matters , or sees themselves to be above ( 3 letter agencies , I am looking at you ) will follow , or with a technological solution that would deny certain things to be reached that way ( deep linking , somewhat ) .
But , oh wait , that solution exists already , or does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just one question:   The freedom of whom?
This theory which this judge proposes (and nothing else is his somewhat backwards argument to be taken as), is that one should be able to control who reads ones posted content.
Point being that this can be legally solved by laws that no one who matters, or sees themselves to be above ( 3 letter agencies, I am looking at you ) will follow, or with a technological solution that would deny certain things to be reached that way (deep linking, somewhat).
But, oh wait, that solution exists already, or doesn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28512745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28510683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28514765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1619211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28513311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505169
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505353
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505543
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28512745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507319
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28514765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28508811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28510683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28506599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28507729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28509119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1619211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1619211.28505873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
