<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_1430249</id>
	<title>LoTR Lawsuit Threatens Hobbit Production</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1247759160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eyrieowl writes <i>"J.R.R.'s heirs are <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&amp;sid=aD.SbdnICvtE">suing for royalties</a> on the LoTR films.  Apparently they haven't gotten any money due to some creative accounting.  Peter Jackson ought to understand...he had to sue the studio for much the same reason.
As for The Hobbit?  FTFA:  'Tolkien's family and a British charity they head, the Tolkien Trust, seek more than $220 million in compensation...[and]...the option to terminate further rights to the author's work.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eyrieowl writes " J.R.R .
's heirs are suing for royalties on the LoTR films .
Apparently they have n't gotten any money due to some creative accounting .
Peter Jackson ought to understand...he had to sue the studio for much the same reason .
As for The Hobbit ?
FTFA : 'Tolkien 's family and a British charity they head , the Tolkien Trust , seek more than $ 220 million in compensation... [ and ] ...the option to terminate further rights to the author 's work .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eyrieowl writes "J.R.R.
's heirs are suing for royalties on the LoTR films.
Apparently they haven't gotten any money due to some creative accounting.
Peter Jackson ought to understand...he had to sue the studio for much the same reason.
As for The Hobbit?
FTFA:  'Tolkien's family and a British charity they head, the Tolkien Trust, seek more than $220 million in compensation...[and]...the option to terminate further rights to the author's work.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721661</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone own their own ideas anymore?</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1247777580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book. Does he (or even his family) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying? Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS. Communism?</i></p><p>I can understand what you are saying, and I agree with it to a point, and that point is called, "Culture".</p><p>The stories and ideas which bind us together as a culture also form the words of our language, the content of our <i>dreams.</i>  Creating a system in which only those who have enough wealth are legally allowed to experience certain thoughts is pretty tyrannical.</p><p>So you have a spectrum; at one end, you have honest rewards earned from honest labor, and on the other end you have tyranny.  Anybody who tries to say that only one end of that spectrum exists. . , well that person is wrong.  (And there are a lot of wrong people out there.)</p><p>The problem is that the gray area between the ends on this spectrum is where most of us live, and the problem cannot be solved by putting every situation through a simple mathematical formula to receive a Yes/No answer.  It just doesn't work that way, as we've found through the application of endless arguments of limited perspective which only give us another push on the logical merry-go-round.</p><p>We should try rather to gauge these situations based on how fair they seem.  LoTR has passed into common culture at this point, that much is clear, however, I also think it would be fair to give a tip of the hat to the Tolkien estate.  It doesn't have to be a billion dollars, but for goodness sake, a couple million wouldn't bloody hurt when studio executive coke-heads are raking it in.  --Speaking of whom, I'd love to see that crowd allow some of their works to pass into public domain.  Sheesh.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book .
Does he ( or even his family ) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying ?
Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it 's now no longer HIS but OURS .
Communism ? I can understand what you are saying , and I agree with it to a point , and that point is called , " Culture " .The stories and ideas which bind us together as a culture also form the words of our language , the content of our dreams .
Creating a system in which only those who have enough wealth are legally allowed to experience certain thoughts is pretty tyrannical.So you have a spectrum ; at one end , you have honest rewards earned from honest labor , and on the other end you have tyranny .
Anybody who tries to say that only one end of that spectrum exists .
. , well that person is wrong .
( And there are a lot of wrong people out there .
) The problem is that the gray area between the ends on this spectrum is where most of us live , and the problem can not be solved by putting every situation through a simple mathematical formula to receive a Yes/No answer .
It just does n't work that way , as we 've found through the application of endless arguments of limited perspective which only give us another push on the logical merry-go-round.We should try rather to gauge these situations based on how fair they seem .
LoTR has passed into common culture at this point , that much is clear , however , I also think it would be fair to give a tip of the hat to the Tolkien estate .
It does n't have to be a billion dollars , but for goodness sake , a couple million would n't bloody hurt when studio executive coke-heads are raking it in .
--Speaking of whom , I 'd love to see that crowd allow some of their works to pass into public domain .
Sheesh.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book.
Does he (or even his family) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying?
Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS.
Communism?I can understand what you are saying, and I agree with it to a point, and that point is called, "Culture".The stories and ideas which bind us together as a culture also form the words of our language, the content of our dreams.
Creating a system in which only those who have enough wealth are legally allowed to experience certain thoughts is pretty tyrannical.So you have a spectrum; at one end, you have honest rewards earned from honest labor, and on the other end you have tyranny.
Anybody who tries to say that only one end of that spectrum exists.
. , well that person is wrong.
(And there are a lot of wrong people out there.
)The problem is that the gray area between the ends on this spectrum is where most of us live, and the problem cannot be solved by putting every situation through a simple mathematical formula to receive a Yes/No answer.
It just doesn't work that way, as we've found through the application of endless arguments of limited perspective which only give us another push on the logical merry-go-round.We should try rather to gauge these situations based on how fair they seem.
LoTR has passed into common culture at this point, that much is clear, however, I also think it would be fair to give a tip of the hat to the Tolkien estate.
It doesn't have to be a billion dollars, but for goodness sake, a couple million wouldn't bloody hurt when studio executive coke-heads are raking it in.
--Speaking of whom, I'd love to see that crowd allow some of their works to pass into public domain.
Sheesh.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718117</id>
	<title>Smeg off!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247764320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The book is 72 years old. Smeg off you vultures!</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Hobbit" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Hobbit</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The book is 72 years old .
Smeg off you vultures ! http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Hobbit [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book is 72 years old.
Smeg off you vultures!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Hobbit [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719149</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not even a kid would laugh at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not even a kid would laugh at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not even a kid would laugh at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718495</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247765460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You already do, but since <i>everyone</i> is a descendant of Adam, and there are far more people than Bible purchases, you're getting paid a fraction of a cent (rounded down to the nearest cent, of course).</p><p>(Nitpick: If I write a book about George Bush, Bush's children do not get royalties for that work.  My children, however, would.  Thus, Adam's children wouldn't get royalties for Genesis, but Moses' children would...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You already do , but since everyone is a descendant of Adam , and there are far more people than Bible purchases , you 're getting paid a fraction of a cent ( rounded down to the nearest cent , of course ) .
( Nitpick : If I write a book about George Bush , Bush 's children do not get royalties for that work .
My children , however , would .
Thus , Adam 's children would n't get royalties for Genesis , but Moses ' children would... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You already do, but since everyone is a descendant of Adam, and there are far more people than Bible purchases, you're getting paid a fraction of a cent (rounded down to the nearest cent, of course).
(Nitpick: If I write a book about George Bush, Bush's children do not get royalties for that work.
My children, however, would.
Thus, Adam's children wouldn't get royalties for Genesis, but Moses' children would...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723559</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247742480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the artist in this case is long dead, and has been buried in a field in Oxford for the last 26 years...</p><p>The only people involved now are vultures who, rather than getting a job like the rest of us, are trying to take vast sums of money off of people who are trying to work at creating movies. And don't think that this is just coming from the "evil movie companies" - increased costs will ultimately be paid by you when you go to the cinema or buy the DVD (assuming they give "permission" for the film to be made in the first place).</p><p>It's a good thing Shakespeare's descendants aren't still around owning the copyright - imagine them making millions off of anyone who tries to use one of his plays, and even being able to dictate what people are allowed to produce?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the artist in this case is long dead , and has been buried in a field in Oxford for the last 26 years...The only people involved now are vultures who , rather than getting a job like the rest of us , are trying to take vast sums of money off of people who are trying to work at creating movies .
And do n't think that this is just coming from the " evil movie companies " - increased costs will ultimately be paid by you when you go to the cinema or buy the DVD ( assuming they give " permission " for the film to be made in the first place ) .It 's a good thing Shakespeare 's descendants are n't still around owning the copyright - imagine them making millions off of anyone who tries to use one of his plays , and even being able to dictate what people are allowed to produce ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the artist in this case is long dead, and has been buried in a field in Oxford for the last 26 years...The only people involved now are vultures who, rather than getting a job like the rest of us, are trying to take vast sums of money off of people who are trying to work at creating movies.
And don't think that this is just coming from the "evil movie companies" - increased costs will ultimately be paid by you when you go to the cinema or buy the DVD (assuming they give "permission" for the film to be made in the first place).It's a good thing Shakespeare's descendants aren't still around owning the copyright - imagine them making millions off of anyone who tries to use one of his plays, and even being able to dictate what people are allowed to produce?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721923</id>
	<title>Re:Then explain this</title>
	<author>somanyrobots</author>
	<datestamp>1247735400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Copyright doesn't even show up in this equation.</p></div><p>Except insofar as the contract is for use of copyrighted material.  So yes, if the copyright had expired at any point since the signing of the contract, the contract would promptly become void. Nothing to sell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright does n't even show up in this equation.Except insofar as the contract is for use of copyrighted material .
So yes , if the copyright had expired at any point since the signing of the contract , the contract would promptly become void .
Nothing to sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright doesn't even show up in this equation.Except insofar as the contract is for use of copyrighted material.
So yes, if the copyright had expired at any point since the signing of the contract, the contract would promptly become void.
Nothing to sell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28727223</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247826480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not? He'd had a fair chance to make a living out of it. 20 years from creation is a generous term - anything more is a selfish stab at the public and culture in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
He 'd had a fair chance to make a living out of it .
20 years from creation is a generous term - anything more is a selfish stab at the public and culture in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
He'd had a fair chance to make a living out of it.
20 years from creation is a generous term - anything more is a selfish stab at the public and culture in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717811</id>
	<title>Hey check it out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Emad had been laying awake for about two hours. It was 10 in the morning and he had already missed two classes, Remedial Linux and Diversity &amp; Tolerance. Had Emad been totally awake he would have groaned. Today's Diversity &amp; Tolerance class was teaching how to put condoms on erect penises, something right up Emad's alley. Well, at least the erect penis part; he knew nothing about condoms.</p><p>Slowly, Emad lumbered out of bed. His joints ached. His head throbbed. What had happened the night before? He could feel dried feces in his pants and was pretty sure his asshole was ripped wide  Oh! He remembered a little too suddenly as he almost tripped over a pile of spent whippits, several beer bottles, and a giant black 48" oil-filled dildo  mounted  on a chainsaw engine. He had had Michael Sims and CmdrTaco over last night for a few cold ones but it seemed that, par for the course, they had all ended up sharing a few <i>hot</i> ones instead, that being their euphemism for <i>homosexual encounters</i>.</p><p>Emad made his way to the bathroom, and moaned. It was in complete disarray. The sink was filled with congealed diarrhea, the floor was sticky with drying piss, and the bathtub looked like a long-neglected water trough on a pig farm. It would take Emad hours to clean this mess. He tried hard to ignore the stench as he sauntered toward the toilet. Didn't Taco and Sims respect anything? Emad gave so much to them and their cause.</p><p>Upon opening the lid on his broken toilet he saw the special gift Taco had left for him: An inhumanly giant turd. It had to be at least a foot and a half in length! Taco had been planning this one, as he saw unchewed peas, corn, and peanuts that all told the story of Rob Malda's special dinner the night before. The monster turd curled around the inside of his toilet. Not wanting to let Rob Malda's magical ass-gift go to waste, Emad reached inside the toilet and gently grasped the brown meat.</p><p>Moaning, Emad began devouring the slimy but firm stool. He tasted the honey on the peanuts; he felt the peas pop as he chewed through the delicious crap-worm. His cock immediately sprang to life as he chomped down bite after bite of the mutant ass-birth. Could life get any better? Down to the last bit of his meal, he gagged and coughed. Needing to wash it all down quickly, Emad yanked his tiny Iranian dick and aimed upward, pissing hard, catching the golden rain in his mouth.</p><p>After what seemed like a painful eternity, his bladder was empty and urine was running down his chin in rivulets. Emad, in the midst of his ecstacy, wondered: <i>Could life get any better?</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Emad had been laying awake for about two hours .
It was 10 in the morning and he had already missed two classes , Remedial Linux and Diversity &amp; Tolerance .
Had Emad been totally awake he would have groaned .
Today 's Diversity &amp; Tolerance class was teaching how to put condoms on erect penises , something right up Emad 's alley .
Well , at least the erect penis part ; he knew nothing about condoms.Slowly , Emad lumbered out of bed .
His joints ached .
His head throbbed .
What had happened the night before ?
He could feel dried feces in his pants and was pretty sure his asshole was ripped wide Oh !
He remembered a little too suddenly as he almost tripped over a pile of spent whippits , several beer bottles , and a giant black 48 " oil-filled dildo mounted on a chainsaw engine .
He had had Michael Sims and CmdrTaco over last night for a few cold ones but it seemed that , par for the course , they had all ended up sharing a few hot ones instead , that being their euphemism for homosexual encounters.Emad made his way to the bathroom , and moaned .
It was in complete disarray .
The sink was filled with congealed diarrhea , the floor was sticky with drying piss , and the bathtub looked like a long-neglected water trough on a pig farm .
It would take Emad hours to clean this mess .
He tried hard to ignore the stench as he sauntered toward the toilet .
Did n't Taco and Sims respect anything ?
Emad gave so much to them and their cause.Upon opening the lid on his broken toilet he saw the special gift Taco had left for him : An inhumanly giant turd .
It had to be at least a foot and a half in length !
Taco had been planning this one , as he saw unchewed peas , corn , and peanuts that all told the story of Rob Malda 's special dinner the night before .
The monster turd curled around the inside of his toilet .
Not wanting to let Rob Malda 's magical ass-gift go to waste , Emad reached inside the toilet and gently grasped the brown meat.Moaning , Emad began devouring the slimy but firm stool .
He tasted the honey on the peanuts ; he felt the peas pop as he chewed through the delicious crap-worm .
His cock immediately sprang to life as he chomped down bite after bite of the mutant ass-birth .
Could life get any better ?
Down to the last bit of his meal , he gagged and coughed .
Needing to wash it all down quickly , Emad yanked his tiny Iranian dick and aimed upward , pissing hard , catching the golden rain in his mouth.After what seemed like a painful eternity , his bladder was empty and urine was running down his chin in rivulets .
Emad , in the midst of his ecstacy , wondered : Could life get any better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emad had been laying awake for about two hours.
It was 10 in the morning and he had already missed two classes, Remedial Linux and Diversity &amp; Tolerance.
Had Emad been totally awake he would have groaned.
Today's Diversity &amp; Tolerance class was teaching how to put condoms on erect penises, something right up Emad's alley.
Well, at least the erect penis part; he knew nothing about condoms.Slowly, Emad lumbered out of bed.
His joints ached.
His head throbbed.
What had happened the night before?
He could feel dried feces in his pants and was pretty sure his asshole was ripped wide  Oh!
He remembered a little too suddenly as he almost tripped over a pile of spent whippits, several beer bottles, and a giant black 48" oil-filled dildo  mounted  on a chainsaw engine.
He had had Michael Sims and CmdrTaco over last night for a few cold ones but it seemed that, par for the course, they had all ended up sharing a few hot ones instead, that being their euphemism for homosexual encounters.Emad made his way to the bathroom, and moaned.
It was in complete disarray.
The sink was filled with congealed diarrhea, the floor was sticky with drying piss, and the bathtub looked like a long-neglected water trough on a pig farm.
It would take Emad hours to clean this mess.
He tried hard to ignore the stench as he sauntered toward the toilet.
Didn't Taco and Sims respect anything?
Emad gave so much to them and their cause.Upon opening the lid on his broken toilet he saw the special gift Taco had left for him: An inhumanly giant turd.
It had to be at least a foot and a half in length!
Taco had been planning this one, as he saw unchewed peas, corn, and peanuts that all told the story of Rob Malda's special dinner the night before.
The monster turd curled around the inside of his toilet.
Not wanting to let Rob Malda's magical ass-gift go to waste, Emad reached inside the toilet and gently grasped the brown meat.Moaning, Emad began devouring the slimy but firm stool.
He tasted the honey on the peanuts; he felt the peas pop as he chewed through the delicious crap-worm.
His cock immediately sprang to life as he chomped down bite after bite of the mutant ass-birth.
Could life get any better?
Down to the last bit of his meal, he gagged and coughed.
Needing to wash it all down quickly, Emad yanked his tiny Iranian dick and aimed upward, pissing hard, catching the golden rain in his mouth.After what seemed like a painful eternity, his bladder was empty and urine was running down his chin in rivulets.
Emad, in the midst of his ecstacy, wondered: Could life get any better? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718379</id>
	<title>re:this is common in hollywood</title>
	<author>ed.han</author>
	<datestamp>1247765160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what i don't understand about all of this: how do the studios make any money whatsoever with accounting of that sort?  how does this survive any kind of auditing process?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what i do n't understand about all of this : how do the studios make any money whatsoever with accounting of that sort ?
how does this survive any kind of auditing process ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what i don't understand about all of this: how do the studios make any money whatsoever with accounting of that sort?
how does this survive any kind of auditing process?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718173</id>
	<title>Re:Thought experiment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop beating around the bush here, there is a common theme in who gets to fuck you in society. Jews are the lawyers, the swindler accountants, and the madoffs of the world. Jews have been robbing us blind since WWII. The Holocaust has just been something to excuse their behavior because they were so persecuted. NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg as another example of a jew taxing hardworking americans to death while his net worth went up 10 billion. Jews are the problem in this country and jews need to be stopped. I personally wouldn't be opposed to a new holocaust if you can throw the thugs life rob and rape idiots in there too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop beating around the bush here , there is a common theme in who gets to fuck you in society .
Jews are the lawyers , the swindler accountants , and the madoffs of the world .
Jews have been robbing us blind since WWII .
The Holocaust has just been something to excuse their behavior because they were so persecuted .
NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg as another example of a jew taxing hardworking americans to death while his net worth went up 10 billion .
Jews are the problem in this country and jews need to be stopped .
I personally would n't be opposed to a new holocaust if you can throw the thugs life rob and rape idiots in there too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop beating around the bush here, there is a common theme in who gets to fuck you in society.
Jews are the lawyers, the swindler accountants, and the madoffs of the world.
Jews have been robbing us blind since WWII.
The Holocaust has just been something to excuse their behavior because they were so persecuted.
NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg as another example of a jew taxing hardworking americans to death while his net worth went up 10 billion.
Jews are the problem in this country and jews need to be stopped.
I personally wouldn't be opposed to a new holocaust if you can throw the thugs life rob and rape idiots in there too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723803</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1247743620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tolkien lived until 1973. Should it have gone PD in his lifetime?</p></div><p>Sure, why not? The provision for copyright in the US Constitution says: "[The Congress shall have Power] 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"
<br> <br>
As such, it is a social contract between the authors and the public, through the agency of the government. The obligations of that contract are (1) for the authors to release that work to the public domain for the public to use after the limited time and (2) for the public to refrain from copying for a limited time.
<br> <br>
So here is my problem with current copyright terms: my grandchildren are not members of the public (not being even conceived yet), so I do not consider that for me to refrain from copying works for my entire life to obtain a benefit for people who may never exist to be the basis of a valid contract. In my view, copyright terms can never rationally be more than half the average life expectancy. There must be a benefit to the actual people refraining from copying.
<br> <br>
On a practical level, to have a workable copyright system you need widespread agreement among the population to adhere to it, because copying is too easy. Mass enforcement will not prove to be possible. To get people to agree, you need to offer them a benefit. Other than release into the public domain within their lifetime, what else is there?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tolkien lived until 1973 .
Should it have gone PD in his lifetime ? Sure , why not ?
The provision for copyright in the US Constitution says : " [ The Congress shall have Power ] 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 " As such , it is a social contract between the authors and the public , through the agency of the government .
The obligations of that contract are ( 1 ) for the authors to release that work to the public domain for the public to use after the limited time and ( 2 ) for the public to refrain from copying for a limited time .
So here is my problem with current copyright terms : my grandchildren are not members of the public ( not being even conceived yet ) , so I do not consider that for me to refrain from copying works for my entire life to obtain a benefit for people who may never exist to be the basis of a valid contract .
In my view , copyright terms can never rationally be more than half the average life expectancy .
There must be a benefit to the actual people refraining from copying .
On a practical level , to have a workable copyright system you need widespread agreement among the population to adhere to it , because copying is too easy .
Mass enforcement will not prove to be possible .
To get people to agree , you need to offer them a benefit .
Other than release into the public domain within their lifetime , what else is there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tolkien lived until 1973.
Should it have gone PD in his lifetime?Sure, why not?
The provision for copyright in the US Constitution says: "[The Congress shall have Power] 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"
 
As such, it is a social contract between the authors and the public, through the agency of the government.
The obligations of that contract are (1) for the authors to release that work to the public domain for the public to use after the limited time and (2) for the public to refrain from copying for a limited time.
So here is my problem with current copyright terms: my grandchildren are not members of the public (not being even conceived yet), so I do not consider that for me to refrain from copying works for my entire life to obtain a benefit for people who may never exist to be the basis of a valid contract.
In my view, copyright terms can never rationally be more than half the average life expectancy.
There must be a benefit to the actual people refraining from copying.
On a practical level, to have a workable copyright system you need widespread agreement among the population to adhere to it, because copying is too easy.
Mass enforcement will not prove to be possible.
To get people to agree, you need to offer them a benefit.
Other than release into the public domain within their lifetime, what else is there?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719835</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1247770380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Typical sex-crazed Hobbit!  What are the part Hobo part Rabbit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical sex-crazed Hobbit !
What are the part Hobo part Rabbit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical sex-crazed Hobbit!
What are the part Hobo part Rabbit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717883</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1247763480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine if the Bard's estate could screw around with people like this.</p></div><p>Oh, man... the implications...  I bet none of the Bard's Tale games would have ever been released!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if the Bard 's estate could screw around with people like this.Oh , man... the implications... I bet none of the Bard 's Tale games would have ever been released !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if the Bard's estate could screw around with people like this.Oh, man... the implications...  I bet none of the Bard's Tale games would have ever been released!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719173</id>
	<title>Re:but but the MPAA is for the artists?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247768040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonsense, they're doing everything in their power to make sure the CON-artists get everything. As for the creative artists that provide material for them to make movies out of? Not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense , they 're doing everything in their power to make sure the CON-artists get everything .
As for the creative artists that provide material for them to make movies out of ?
Not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense, they're doing everything in their power to make sure the CON-artists get everything.
As for the creative artists that provide material for them to make movies out of?
Not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718219</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoosh.
<br> <br>
If the copyright on The Hobbit had expired, <i>nothing</i> could stop Time Warner, or anyone else for that matter, from making a film adaptation of the book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoosh .
If the copyright on The Hobbit had expired , nothing could stop Time Warner , or anyone else for that matter , from making a film adaptation of the book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoosh.
If the copyright on The Hobbit had expired, nothing could stop Time Warner, or anyone else for that matter, from making a film adaptation of the book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722065</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>billius</author>
	<datestamp>1247735940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed.  To quote Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski, "Basically, by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits."  That's how you avoid paying someone who has made you $1 billion.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
To quote Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski , " Basically , by the terms of my contract , if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana , they can charge it against B5 's profits .
" That 's how you avoid paying someone who has made you $ 1 billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
To quote Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski, "Basically, by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits.
"  That's how you avoid paying someone who has made you $1 billion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718635</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1247766000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but surely the Tolkien estate knew this before they began negotiations with New Line, Jackson, and anyone else in the Hollywood, right? As you have said, <b> <i>Hollywood is infamous and notorious for this type of dealing</i> </b>, which is why everyone who gets a percentage gets a percentage of the <b> <i>gross sales</i> </b> rather than the "net profits" (which are always zero or as close to zero as they can possibly be for IRS and state tax purposes). I find it hard to believe that the Tolkien estate could be so naive about how Hollywood works. No, they probably did negotiate a share of the gross and some other merchandising percentage (which is where Jackson had his disagreement if I recall correctly), but now New Line is probably saying that the gross from merchandising or other non-dvd and box office sources, which may be harder to quantify, is smaller than expected. A lawsuit, with some sort of settlement, may be a foregone conclusion now just so that each side can say that they did their best to get the best deal they could for their shareholders or trustees on an amount that was uncertain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but surely the Tolkien estate knew this before they began negotiations with New Line , Jackson , and anyone else in the Hollywood , right ?
As you have said , Hollywood is infamous and notorious for this type of dealing , which is why everyone who gets a percentage gets a percentage of the gross sales rather than the " net profits " ( which are always zero or as close to zero as they can possibly be for IRS and state tax purposes ) .
I find it hard to believe that the Tolkien estate could be so naive about how Hollywood works .
No , they probably did negotiate a share of the gross and some other merchandising percentage ( which is where Jackson had his disagreement if I recall correctly ) , but now New Line is probably saying that the gross from merchandising or other non-dvd and box office sources , which may be harder to quantify , is smaller than expected .
A lawsuit , with some sort of settlement , may be a foregone conclusion now just so that each side can say that they did their best to get the best deal they could for their shareholders or trustees on an amount that was uncertain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but surely the Tolkien estate knew this before they began negotiations with New Line, Jackson, and anyone else in the Hollywood, right?
As you have said,  Hollywood is infamous and notorious for this type of dealing , which is why everyone who gets a percentage gets a percentage of the  gross sales  rather than the "net profits" (which are always zero or as close to zero as they can possibly be for IRS and state tax purposes).
I find it hard to believe that the Tolkien estate could be so naive about how Hollywood works.
No, they probably did negotiate a share of the gross and some other merchandising percentage (which is where Jackson had his disagreement if I recall correctly), but now New Line is probably saying that the gross from merchandising or other non-dvd and box office sources, which may be harder to quantify, is smaller than expected.
A lawsuit, with some sort of settlement, may be a foregone conclusion now just so that each side can say that they did their best to get the best deal they could for their shareholders or trustees on an amount that was uncertain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247764440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, it should have been in the public domain when I bought my copy of the trilogy in 1970.</p><p>They're building one of those "Habitat Houses" down the street from me, and I wondered to my daughter if all the workers had tattoos of hobbits on them.</p><p>"Why?" she asked.</p><p>"Hobbit tat for humanity".</p><p>Ok, I'll get my coat...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , it should have been in the public domain when I bought my copy of the trilogy in 1970.They 're building one of those " Habitat Houses " down the street from me , and I wondered to my daughter if all the workers had tattoos of hobbits on them. " Why ?
" she asked .
" Hobbit tat for humanity " .Ok , I 'll get my coat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, it should have been in the public domain when I bought my copy of the trilogy in 1970.They're building one of those "Habitat Houses" down the street from me, and I wondered to my daughter if all the workers had tattoos of hobbits on them."Why?
" she asked.
"Hobbit tat for humanity".Ok, I'll get my coat...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722597</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>DigitalCrackPipe</author>
	<datestamp>1247738040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look up the definition of copyright, this would not be in the public domain: <i>In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years.</i>[wikipedia.org]<br> <br>
These books were written from about 1948 onward, and Tolkien died in 1973.  So, there are many more years before this material enters the public domain.  The heirs of the intellectual property as well as the contracts that were made are intended to continue to receive the benefits of his work.
<br> <br>
If you don't agree with copyright law that's another matter, but your "for a variety of reasons" is a rather insincere way of saying "because I don't believe in copyright".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look up the definition of copyright , this would not be in the public domain : In most of the world , the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years .
[ wikipedia.org ] These books were written from about 1948 onward , and Tolkien died in 1973 .
So , there are many more years before this material enters the public domain .
The heirs of the intellectual property as well as the contracts that were made are intended to continue to receive the benefits of his work .
If you do n't agree with copyright law that 's another matter , but your " for a variety of reasons " is a rather insincere way of saying " because I do n't believe in copyright " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look up the definition of copyright, this would not be in the public domain: In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years.
[wikipedia.org] 
These books were written from about 1948 onward, and Tolkien died in 1973.
So, there are many more years before this material enters the public domain.
The heirs of the intellectual property as well as the contracts that were made are intended to continue to receive the benefits of his work.
If you don't agree with copyright law that's another matter, but your "for a variety of reasons" is a rather insincere way of saying "because I don't believe in copyright".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719291</id>
	<title>Re:LotR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If acronym means abbreviation, why have two words?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because, as you said yourself, "not all abbreviations are acronyms".  Mass. is an abbreviation of Massachusetts, but it's certainly not an acronym by any definition.</p><blockquote><div><p>How do we communicate the lost specificity of the word acronym?</p></div></blockquote><p>Adjectives?  "Spoken acronym", if you really need to make the distinction?  (How often does that happen?)</p><p>The point is, right or wrong, nobody uses "initialism", and that's not likely to change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If acronym means abbreviation , why have two words ? Because , as you said yourself , " not all abbreviations are acronyms " .
Mass. is an abbreviation of Massachusetts , but it 's certainly not an acronym by any definition.How do we communicate the lost specificity of the word acronym ? Adjectives ?
" Spoken acronym " , if you really need to make the distinction ?
( How often does that happen ?
) The point is , right or wrong , nobody uses " initialism " , and that 's not likely to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If acronym means abbreviation, why have two words?Because, as you said yourself, "not all abbreviations are acronyms".
Mass. is an abbreviation of Massachusetts, but it's certainly not an acronym by any definition.How do we communicate the lost specificity of the word acronym?Adjectives?
"Spoken acronym", if you really need to make the distinction?
(How often does that happen?
)The point is, right or wrong, nobody uses "initialism", and that's not likely to change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719051</id>
	<title>Eminent Domain for Copyrights / Patents</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1247767560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need Eminent Domain for intangible properties as well. With that the government can nationalize the rights to LoTR and ensure seamless production of 'The Hobbit' films. The government can request to the Supreme Court that this lawsuit is considered "hindrance to the advancement of humanities" and therefore should grant eminent domain rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need Eminent Domain for intangible properties as well .
With that the government can nationalize the rights to LoTR and ensure seamless production of 'The Hobbit ' films .
The government can request to the Supreme Court that this lawsuit is considered " hindrance to the advancement of humanities " and therefore should grant eminent domain rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need Eminent Domain for intangible properties as well.
With that the government can nationalize the rights to LoTR and ensure seamless production of 'The Hobbit' films.
The government can request to the Supreme Court that this lawsuit is considered "hindrance to the advancement of humanities" and therefore should grant eminent domain rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719605</id>
	<title>The answer?</title>
	<author>city</author>
	<datestamp>1247769540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>www.pirate-party.us

<br>
<br>
I have my problmes with ye olde party, but I really can't stand much more of this BS. Somebody is going to have to do something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>www.pirate-party.us I have my problmes with ye olde party , but I really ca n't stand much more of this BS .
Somebody is going to have to do something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.pirate-party.us



I have my problmes with ye olde party, but I really can't stand much more of this BS.
Somebody is going to have to do something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718755</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Books released in 1954, movie rights contract signed in 1969.</p><p>Are you arguing for sub-16-year copyright terms?</p><p>Admittedly I think 20 year terms would actually be reasonable, getting relatively modern works out into the public domain for consumption, but long enough to earn a crust. Of course the criminal movie business would just wait for stories to expire copyright, and make a mint off of them afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Books released in 1954 , movie rights contract signed in 1969.Are you arguing for sub-16-year copyright terms ? Admittedly I think 20 year terms would actually be reasonable , getting relatively modern works out into the public domain for consumption , but long enough to earn a crust .
Of course the criminal movie business would just wait for stories to expire copyright , and make a mint off of them afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Books released in 1954, movie rights contract signed in 1969.Are you arguing for sub-16-year copyright terms?Admittedly I think 20 year terms would actually be reasonable, getting relatively modern works out into the public domain for consumption, but long enough to earn a crust.
Of course the criminal movie business would just wait for stories to expire copyright, and make a mint off of them afterwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723099</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is why no matter what you do, no matter in what sector you work, you must always demand a share of revenues not profits.  Seriously people, revenues, not profits. I'm going to repeat it again in case you ever are in a contract negotation... revenues not profits.  Also, you want a linear scale, not a sliding scale the "rewards performance"  Such sliding scales are always set so that you only get a share at unrealistically high sales volumes.  So again, here is what you always insist on: \% of revenues, at a flat rate.  Anything else is a non starter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is why no matter what you do , no matter in what sector you work , you must always demand a share of revenues not profits .
Seriously people , revenues , not profits .
I 'm going to repeat it again in case you ever are in a contract negotation... revenues not profits .
Also , you want a linear scale , not a sliding scale the " rewards performance " Such sliding scales are always set so that you only get a share at unrealistically high sales volumes .
So again , here is what you always insist on : \ % of revenues , at a flat rate .
Anything else is a non starter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is why no matter what you do, no matter in what sector you work, you must always demand a share of revenues not profits.
Seriously people, revenues, not profits.
I'm going to repeat it again in case you ever are in a contract negotation... revenues not profits.
Also, you want a linear scale, not a sliding scale the "rewards performance"  Such sliding scales are always set so that you only get a share at unrealistically high sales volumes.
So again, here is what you always insist on: \% of revenues, at a flat rate.
Anything else is a non starter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722493</id>
	<title>Re:Then explain this</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1247737560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Without their work, my knowledge of Tolkien would probably be limited to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.</p><p>Without Christopher, as a child, correcting his father when he told some story differently than the first time, JRRT wouldn't have written anything down, and only the family and some friends would have any knowledge of Middle Earth, and unless you were heavily into Saxon Literature you would never have heard of him except as a friend of C. S. Lewis and member of his writing circle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Without their work , my knowledge of Tolkien would probably be limited to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.Without Christopher , as a child , correcting his father when he told some story differently than the first time , JRRT would n't have written anything down , and only the family and some friends would have any knowledge of Middle Earth , and unless you were heavily into Saxon Literature you would never have heard of him except as a friend of C. S. Lewis and member of his writing circle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Without their work, my knowledge of Tolkien would probably be limited to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.Without Christopher, as a child, correcting his father when he told some story differently than the first time, JRRT wouldn't have written anything down, and only the family and some friends would have any knowledge of Middle Earth, and unless you were heavily into Saxon Literature you would never have heard of him except as a friend of C. S. Lewis and member of his writing circle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719663</id>
	<title>Re:Read this elsewhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247769720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Q<br>x<br>5 cockatrice eggs in quiver.<br>f<br>8</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Qx5 cockatrice eggs in quiver.f8</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Qx5 cockatrice eggs in quiver.f8</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718031</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>Boomerang Fish</author>
	<datestamp>1247763960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a cursory reading of the article, this isn't about copyright but about a contract the studio had signed years ago.</p><p>AFAIK &amp; IANAL, but I don't think a contract, freely signed, expires just because copyright does, unless of course there is a clause in there stipulating it.</p><p>--<br>I drank what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a cursory reading of the article , this is n't about copyright but about a contract the studio had signed years ago.AFAIK &amp; IANAL , but I do n't think a contract , freely signed , expires just because copyright does , unless of course there is a clause in there stipulating it.--I drank what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a cursory reading of the article, this isn't about copyright but about a contract the studio had signed years ago.AFAIK &amp; IANAL, but I don't think a contract, freely signed, expires just because copyright does, unless of course there is a clause in there stipulating it.--I drank what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719959</id>
	<title>Re:I'd normally side with the family, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He would destroy all existing copies of the movies AND brainwash everyone who has seen them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He would destroy all existing copies of the movies AND brainwash everyone who has seen them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He would destroy all existing copies of the movies AND brainwash everyone who has seen them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718867</id>
	<title>Re:this is common in hollywood</title>
	<author>blackraven14250</author>
	<datestamp>1247766840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hypothetical: 95\% of gross goes to subcontractors (run by studios). 5\% (as guaranteed amount, i.e. 2 million) goes to people involved. That takes care of everything the movie grosses. There's no money left as profit, so anything based on net profit gets nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypothetical : 95 \ % of gross goes to subcontractors ( run by studios ) .
5 \ % ( as guaranteed amount , i.e .
2 million ) goes to people involved .
That takes care of everything the movie grosses .
There 's no money left as profit , so anything based on net profit gets nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypothetical: 95\% of gross goes to subcontractors (run by studios).
5\% (as guaranteed amount, i.e.
2 million) goes to people involved.
That takes care of everything the movie grosses.
There's no money left as profit, so anything based on net profit gets nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717891</id>
	<title>Let me spell this out clearly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Under the contract, New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts, after deducting 2.6 times the production costs, plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount, according to Eskenazi."

The simple lesson of hollywood accounting is this: you take a percentage of the gross - nothing more, nothing less. It might mean you get a smaller percentage, but there's nothing they can do to bury anything or remove anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Under the contract , New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts , after deducting 2.6 times the production costs , plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount , according to Eskenazi .
" The simple lesson of hollywood accounting is this : you take a percentage of the gross - nothing more , nothing less .
It might mean you get a smaller percentage , but there 's nothing they can do to bury anything or remove anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Under the contract, New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts, after deducting 2.6 times the production costs, plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount, according to Eskenazi.
"

The simple lesson of hollywood accounting is this: you take a percentage of the gross - nothing more, nothing less.
It might mean you get a smaller percentage, but there's nothing they can do to bury anything or remove anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720409</id>
	<title>Re:this is common in hollywood</title>
	<author>S7urm</author>
	<datestamp>1247772420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or put a bit more simply, there is no profit, because the "real profit" is distributed out as a calculated expense, so basically, they factor in their "net income" prior to the distribution of the film, and factor it as a "cost of creation" expense, because they guarantee a set figure as a "return of investment" expense, thus it zeros out the bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or put a bit more simply , there is no profit , because the " real profit " is distributed out as a calculated expense , so basically , they factor in their " net income " prior to the distribution of the film , and factor it as a " cost of creation " expense , because they guarantee a set figure as a " return of investment " expense , thus it zeros out the bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or put a bit more simply, there is no profit, because the "real profit" is distributed out as a calculated expense, so basically, they factor in their "net income" prior to the distribution of the film, and factor it as a "cost of creation" expense, because they guarantee a set figure as a "return of investment" expense, thus it zeros out the bottom line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718007</id>
	<title>This is common in Hollywood</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1247763840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the studios, <a href="http://screencrave.com/2009-04-14/blockbusters-that-claim-to-lose-money-to-make-money/" title="screencrave.com">Spider-Man, Return of the Jedi and Forrest Gump all lost money</a> [screencrave.com] and therefore no royalty on net income needs to be paid.<br> <br>

These people are simply criminals, and deserve to be locked up as such. However Hollywood is famous for making large political contributions, and their boys are in power at the moment. (not that the "other" party did anything about it either)</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the studios , Spider-Man , Return of the Jedi and Forrest Gump all lost money [ screencrave.com ] and therefore no royalty on net income needs to be paid .
These people are simply criminals , and deserve to be locked up as such .
However Hollywood is famous for making large political contributions , and their boys are in power at the moment .
( not that the " other " party did anything about it either )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the studios, Spider-Man, Return of the Jedi and Forrest Gump all lost money [screencrave.com] and therefore no royalty on net income needs to be paid.
These people are simply criminals, and deserve to be locked up as such.
However Hollywood is famous for making large political contributions, and their boys are in power at the moment.
(not that the "other" party did anything about it either)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719935</id>
	<title>Re:it's up to citizens to punish them, then.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do US citizens have guns if not for that?</p><p>How big a crime does it take before people stand up and say: "This BS stops now, or else."</p><p>LOTR apparently made over 2 billion dollars. \_Who\_ took the money?</p><p>Procura o cara.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do US citizens have guns if not for that ? How big a crime does it take before people stand up and say : " This BS stops now , or else .
" LOTR apparently made over 2 billion dollars .
\ _Who \ _ took the money ? Procura o cara .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do US citizens have guns if not for that?How big a crime does it take before people stand up and say: "This BS stops now, or else.
"LOTR apparently made over 2 billion dollars.
\_Who\_ took the money?Procura o cara.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721829</id>
	<title>Re:Thought experiment</title>
	<author>Number6.2</author>
	<datestamp>1247734920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what a great idea for a movie!  I'll cut you in for half the profits!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what a great idea for a movie !
I 'll cut you in for half the profits !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what a great idea for a movie!
I'll cut you in for half the profits!
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720371</id>
	<title>As someone with children...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree copyrights have been extended far too many times and too many years into the future.  However, as a father, there is little doubt in my mind that I would do nearly anything in my power to provide for my children even after death.  Of course there is a gray area in this matter, but to curse the children or grandchildren of someone simply because they are taking advantage of the fruits of their family's labor seems a little harsh.  I'd die happy knowing that my family and even extended family was provided for due to my creative works.  It gets murky with great-grandchildren and so on, but at least I'd like to know the people I knew in life were taken care of when I die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree copyrights have been extended far too many times and too many years into the future .
However , as a father , there is little doubt in my mind that I would do nearly anything in my power to provide for my children even after death .
Of course there is a gray area in this matter , but to curse the children or grandchildren of someone simply because they are taking advantage of the fruits of their family 's labor seems a little harsh .
I 'd die happy knowing that my family and even extended family was provided for due to my creative works .
It gets murky with great-grandchildren and so on , but at least I 'd like to know the people I knew in life were taken care of when I die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree copyrights have been extended far too many times and too many years into the future.
However, as a father, there is little doubt in my mind that I would do nearly anything in my power to provide for my children even after death.
Of course there is a gray area in this matter, but to curse the children or grandchildren of someone simply because they are taking advantage of the fruits of their family's labor seems a little harsh.
I'd die happy knowing that my family and even extended family was provided for due to my creative works.
It gets murky with great-grandchildren and so on, but at least I'd like to know the people I knew in life were taken care of when I die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717963</id>
	<title>Business men are jews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jews trying to outjew other jews.  Haha, what a great way to form a society.  No wonder why other societies who go the shrewd jew route end up collapsing into anarchy, then the shambled get picked up by societies that look out for their own, like those of islam.</p><p>Just look at the middle east for example.  With the exception of the Israel, which is propped up by the U.S., it is mostly Moslem.  We should take heed this lesson, as the middle east is the location of the world's oldest societies.  We are still young yet, but we can see on the other side of the world our future.</p><p>Today's magic word is: merchant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jews trying to outjew other jews .
Haha , what a great way to form a society .
No wonder why other societies who go the shrewd jew route end up collapsing into anarchy , then the shambled get picked up by societies that look out for their own , like those of islam.Just look at the middle east for example .
With the exception of the Israel , which is propped up by the U.S. , it is mostly Moslem .
We should take heed this lesson , as the middle east is the location of the world 's oldest societies .
We are still young yet , but we can see on the other side of the world our future.Today 's magic word is : merchant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jews trying to outjew other jews.
Haha, what a great way to form a society.
No wonder why other societies who go the shrewd jew route end up collapsing into anarchy, then the shambled get picked up by societies that look out for their own, like those of islam.Just look at the middle east for example.
With the exception of the Israel, which is propped up by the U.S., it is mostly Moslem.
We should take heed this lesson, as the middle east is the location of the world's oldest societies.
We are still young yet, but we can see on the other side of the world our future.Today's magic word is: merchant</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28730203</id>
	<title>where are my Chaucer Royalties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247847240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a direct descendant of Geoffrey Chaucer and am thinking of suing. I mean if the J.R.R. family can still have these rights, then so should I. Yes, I know it's the estate that got the rights, and it's a company that lives forever, blah, blah, blah, but that's just fricken wrong. I'm owned some serious money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a direct descendant of Geoffrey Chaucer and am thinking of suing .
I mean if the J.R.R .
family can still have these rights , then so should I. Yes , I know it 's the estate that got the rights , and it 's a company that lives forever , blah , blah , blah , but that 's just fricken wrong .
I 'm owned some serious money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a direct descendant of Geoffrey Chaucer and am thinking of suing.
I mean if the J.R.R.
family can still have these rights, then so should I. Yes, I know it's the estate that got the rights, and it's a company that lives forever, blah, blah, blah, but that's just fricken wrong.
I'm owned some serious money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717881</id>
	<title>Funny Add</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about targeted advertizing, not only is my add on this page for LOTRO, but it also shows the dollar bill pyramid replaced at the top with Sauron's great eye.  Spot on for the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about targeted advertizing , not only is my add on this page for LOTRO , but it also shows the dollar bill pyramid replaced at the top with Sauron 's great eye .
Spot on for the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about targeted advertizing, not only is my add on this page for LOTRO, but it also shows the dollar bill pyramid replaced at the top with Sauron's great eye.
Spot on for the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720705</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, the studio actually contributed to getting the movies made rather than attempting to live off the works of a long-since-dead relative. So what we have here is really a situation where two entities that use flaws in our legal system are fighting over money that neither really morally deserves.</p><p>Screwing over actors and directors is one thing...I'll side with the artistic types that actually make the movies any day of the week. But when it comes to someone trying to live off the legacy of their successful ancestor, I have very little sympathy. Boo hoo...get a job like the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the studio actually contributed to getting the movies made rather than attempting to live off the works of a long-since-dead relative .
So what we have here is really a situation where two entities that use flaws in our legal system are fighting over money that neither really morally deserves.Screwing over actors and directors is one thing...I 'll side with the artistic types that actually make the movies any day of the week .
But when it comes to someone trying to live off the legacy of their successful ancestor , I have very little sympathy .
Boo hoo...get a job like the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the studio actually contributed to getting the movies made rather than attempting to live off the works of a long-since-dead relative.
So what we have here is really a situation where two entities that use flaws in our legal system are fighting over money that neither really morally deserves.Screwing over actors and directors is one thing...I'll side with the artistic types that actually make the movies any day of the week.
But when it comes to someone trying to live off the legacy of their successful ancestor, I have very little sympathy.
Boo hoo...get a job like the rest of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718147</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>tritonman</author>
	<datestamp>1247764440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a descendant of Adam, and since the bible was written about him, I should get royalties on every Bible sale!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a descendant of Adam , and since the bible was written about him , I should get royalties on every Bible sale !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a descendant of Adam, and since the bible was written about him, I should get royalties on every Bible sale!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721887</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1247735160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is strange.  Since Carrie Fisher asked for and got a fraction of a percent of the gross of Starwars, I'd thought that kind of deal became standard.  What kind of idiot nowadays would settle for profits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is strange .
Since Carrie Fisher asked for and got a fraction of a percent of the gross of Starwars , I 'd thought that kind of deal became standard .
What kind of idiot nowadays would settle for profits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is strange.
Since Carrie Fisher asked for and got a fraction of a percent of the gross of Starwars, I'd thought that kind of deal became standard.
What kind of idiot nowadays would settle for profits?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28726773</id>
	<title>Re:Thought experiment</title>
	<author>PMBjornerud</author>
	<datestamp>1247862060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is going to sound wacky, but I really just want to think it through.</p><p>What if we made the kind of fraud that's apparently exercised by music and movie studio accountants, punishable by death?</p><p>How would that play out in society and culture?</p></div><p>Answer:<br>Music and movie studios would lobby and twist the law until they could hand out death sentences for piracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to sound wacky , but I really just want to think it through.What if we made the kind of fraud that 's apparently exercised by music and movie studio accountants , punishable by death ? How would that play out in society and culture ? Answer : Music and movie studios would lobby and twist the law until they could hand out death sentences for piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to sound wacky, but I really just want to think it through.What if we made the kind of fraud that's apparently exercised by music and movie studio accountants, punishable by death?How would that play out in society and culture?Answer:Music and movie studios would lobby and twist the law until they could hand out death sentences for piracy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718929</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.</p><p>OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here. These are works<br>that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons. The<br>worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any of<br>the greedy schmucks.</p></div><p>I disagree since the next of kin is his son... Who knows how much "quality time" the son missed with dad because dad was constantly locked up in his office writing.</p><p>The money doesn't bring dad back or create new father son memories to be sure. But doesn't the son's (probably involuntary) sacrafice of time with his father deserve some compensation?</p><p>Now if this was uncles, second cousins, etc... I think you'd have a better point.</p><p>But what if we consider his Dad's motivation? I am no expert on Tolkien's life but if he was writing specifically to be published and support his family... Being in a position where his work can continue long after he's dead, if it was his wish that his works fall into the public domain you are right on the money. If it was his wish that his works support his family and his families family, etc then things are proceeding as planned.</p><p>It should be like choosing a license for software you write. You're entitled to pick whatever license you want and if others don't like the license they don't have to use it.</p><p>Just because you die doesn't change or invalidate the license. (unless of course the license states otherwise.) The problem is few people think to put into contract what happens to their work when they die so the companies decide for them.</p><p>And the only thing better than a productive employee is a productive employee you don't have to pay anymore.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...on the one hand , the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.OTOH , the next of kin should not be in the picture here .
These are worksthat should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons .
Theworthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any ofthe greedy schmucks.I disagree since the next of kin is his son... Who knows how much " quality time " the son missed with dad because dad was constantly locked up in his office writing.The money does n't bring dad back or create new father son memories to be sure .
But does n't the son 's ( probably involuntary ) sacrafice of time with his father deserve some compensation ? Now if this was uncles , second cousins , etc... I think you 'd have a better point.But what if we consider his Dad 's motivation ?
I am no expert on Tolkien 's life but if he was writing specifically to be published and support his family... Being in a position where his work can continue long after he 's dead , if it was his wish that his works fall into the public domain you are right on the money .
If it was his wish that his works support his family and his families family , etc then things are proceeding as planned.It should be like choosing a license for software you write .
You 're entitled to pick whatever license you want and if others do n't like the license they do n't have to use it.Just because you die does n't change or invalidate the license .
( unless of course the license states otherwise .
) The problem is few people think to put into contract what happens to their work when they die so the companies decide for them.And the only thing better than a productive employee is a productive employee you do n't have to pay anymore .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here.
These are worksthat should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons.
Theworthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any ofthe greedy schmucks.I disagree since the next of kin is his son... Who knows how much "quality time" the son missed with dad because dad was constantly locked up in his office writing.The money doesn't bring dad back or create new father son memories to be sure.
But doesn't the son's (probably involuntary) sacrafice of time with his father deserve some compensation?Now if this was uncles, second cousins, etc... I think you'd have a better point.But what if we consider his Dad's motivation?
I am no expert on Tolkien's life but if he was writing specifically to be published and support his family... Being in a position where his work can continue long after he's dead, if it was his wish that his works fall into the public domain you are right on the money.
If it was his wish that his works support his family and his families family, etc then things are proceeding as planned.It should be like choosing a license for software you write.
You're entitled to pick whatever license you want and if others don't like the license they don't have to use it.Just because you die doesn't change or invalidate the license.
(unless of course the license states otherwise.
) The problem is few people think to put into contract what happens to their work when they die so the companies decide for them.And the only thing better than a productive employee is a productive employee you don't have to pay anymore.
:/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718357</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1247765100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet we all know the studios are in it for the money.  We know they will work out the numbers so the film makes no money.
<p>
Yet there is so much money that everyone who wants to make a quick buck will get in bed with these known con artists. When the con appears, everyone cries out like this was something unexpected.  I really have to ask. Given that we know the studios are cheats, who will sign a contract based on future recipts?  People who are greedy, and willing to take the risk, perhaps?
</p><p>
As I see it the studios have invested at least 300 million in these movies, and probably twice that much.  Investor supply this insane amount of money because they expect an insane return.  Would the movie had been made it large returns on investment were not going to be great?  Do the heirs, who did not right a single word, really care about the movie at all, or that it makes books which are based on wonderful language in a farce?  Sure assembly line books like Harry Potter suffer nothing by going into movie form, but this is literature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet we all know the studios are in it for the money .
We know they will work out the numbers so the film makes no money .
Yet there is so much money that everyone who wants to make a quick buck will get in bed with these known con artists .
When the con appears , everyone cries out like this was something unexpected .
I really have to ask .
Given that we know the studios are cheats , who will sign a contract based on future recipts ?
People who are greedy , and willing to take the risk , perhaps ?
As I see it the studios have invested at least 300 million in these movies , and probably twice that much .
Investor supply this insane amount of money because they expect an insane return .
Would the movie had been made it large returns on investment were not going to be great ?
Do the heirs , who did not right a single word , really care about the movie at all , or that it makes books which are based on wonderful language in a farce ?
Sure assembly line books like Harry Potter suffer nothing by going into movie form , but this is literature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet we all know the studios are in it for the money.
We know they will work out the numbers so the film makes no money.
Yet there is so much money that everyone who wants to make a quick buck will get in bed with these known con artists.
When the con appears, everyone cries out like this was something unexpected.
I really have to ask.
Given that we know the studios are cheats, who will sign a contract based on future recipts?
People who are greedy, and willing to take the risk, perhaps?
As I see it the studios have invested at least 300 million in these movies, and probably twice that much.
Investor supply this insane amount of money because they expect an insane return.
Would the movie had been made it large returns on investment were not going to be great?
Do the heirs, who did not right a single word, really care about the movie at all, or that it makes books which are based on wonderful language in a farce?
Sure assembly line books like Harry Potter suffer nothing by going into movie form, but this is literature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721691</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1247777700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They're building one of those "Habitat Houses" down the street from me, and I wondered to my daughter if all the workers had tattoos of hobbits on them.<br> <br>

"Why?" she asked.<br> <br>

"Hobbit tat for humanity".</p></div></blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/50.html" title="irregularwebcomic.net">David "Dangermouse" Morgan-Mar, is that you?</a> [irregularwebcomic.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're building one of those " Habitat Houses " down the street from me , and I wondered to my daughter if all the workers had tattoos of hobbits on them .
" Why ? " she asked .
" Hobbit tat for humanity " .
David " Dangermouse " Morgan-Mar , is that you ?
[ irregularwebcomic.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're building one of those "Habitat Houses" down the street from me, and I wondered to my daughter if all the workers had tattoos of hobbits on them.
"Why?" she asked.
"Hobbit tat for humanity".
David "Dangermouse" Morgan-Mar, is that you?
[irregularwebcomic.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718447</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought all the studio's cared about was the artists? That was why we have the RIAA and DMCA. How is thsi different from piracy? In both cases the artost gets hosed I woudl say. The difference is in this case it is some big companies stealing millions instead of millions of fans stealing a few dollars. I would think the artist woudl prefer the fans gettign something. They shoudl charge the companies more than 2,000 times the value for each instance of creative accounting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought all the studio 's cared about was the artists ?
That was why we have the RIAA and DMCA .
How is thsi different from piracy ?
In both cases the artost gets hosed I woudl say .
The difference is in this case it is some big companies stealing millions instead of millions of fans stealing a few dollars .
I would think the artist woudl prefer the fans gettign something .
They shoudl charge the companies more than 2,000 times the value for each instance of creative accounting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought all the studio's cared about was the artists?
That was why we have the RIAA and DMCA.
How is thsi different from piracy?
In both cases the artost gets hosed I woudl say.
The difference is in this case it is some big companies stealing millions instead of millions of fans stealing a few dollars.
I would think the artist woudl prefer the fans gettign something.
They shoudl charge the companies more than 2,000 times the value for each instance of creative accounting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718773</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>Moebius Loop</author>
	<datestamp>1247766480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here. These are works<br>that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons. The<br>worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any of<br>the greedy schmucks.</p></div><p>I agree with you for the most part, but  I would note that Christopher Tolkien has been instrumental in editing and releasing huge amounts of his father's unreleased material. He appears to have both a geniune love for the material and a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of even the most esoteric Tolkien works (of which there is probably more raw material than LOTR and the Hobbit combined).</p><p>For example, the Silmarillion (which covers much of the backstory that is only implied during LOTR) would probably not have been able to be released without the extensive editing and reorganization that Christopher performed.</p><p>Given that LOTR and the Hobbit are part of an extremely vast mythology that is hugely important in explaining the details of those stories, I can't say that he shouldn't have some claim and control of his father's material.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , the next of kin should not be in the picture here .
These are worksthat should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons .
Theworthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any ofthe greedy schmucks.I agree with you for the most part , but I would note that Christopher Tolkien has been instrumental in editing and releasing huge amounts of his father 's unreleased material .
He appears to have both a geniune love for the material and a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of even the most esoteric Tolkien works ( of which there is probably more raw material than LOTR and the Hobbit combined ) .For example , the Silmarillion ( which covers much of the backstory that is only implied during LOTR ) would probably not have been able to be released without the extensive editing and reorganization that Christopher performed.Given that LOTR and the Hobbit are part of an extremely vast mythology that is hugely important in explaining the details of those stories , I ca n't say that he should n't have some claim and control of his father 's material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here.
These are worksthat should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons.
Theworthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any ofthe greedy schmucks.I agree with you for the most part, but  I would note that Christopher Tolkien has been instrumental in editing and releasing huge amounts of his father's unreleased material.
He appears to have both a geniune love for the material and a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of even the most esoteric Tolkien works (of which there is probably more raw material than LOTR and the Hobbit combined).For example, the Silmarillion (which covers much of the backstory that is only implied during LOTR) would probably not have been able to be released without the extensive editing and reorganization that Christopher performed.Given that LOTR and the Hobbit are part of an extremely vast mythology that is hugely important in explaining the details of those stories, I can't say that he shouldn't have some claim and control of his father's material.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28726845</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone own their own ideas anymore?</title>
	<author>grimborg</author>
	<datestamp>1247863020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My father used to fuck a woman, who gave birth to a child who's now a hooker. Why can't I have a share of the profit she makes? After all, I am my father's family...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My father used to fuck a woman , who gave birth to a child who 's now a hooker .
Why ca n't I have a share of the profit she makes ?
After all , I am my father 's family.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father used to fuck a woman, who gave birth to a child who's now a hooker.
Why can't I have a share of the profit she makes?
After all, I am my father's family...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717915</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>TitusC3v5</author>
	<datestamp>1247763540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should probably be noted that the studio in question is <b>Time Warner Inc.</b> I'm not sure why that piece of info wasn't in TFS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should probably be noted that the studio in question is Time Warner Inc. I 'm not sure why that piece of info was n't in TFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should probably be noted that the studio in question is Time Warner Inc. I'm not sure why that piece of info wasn't in TFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719439</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>slashing1</author>
	<datestamp>1247768940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here. These are works
that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons. The
worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any of
the greedy schmucks. </p></div><p>Although the next of kin might generally not contribute much to the work, this is not necessarily the case here. Christopher Tolkien, JRR's kid, actually did the compilation and editing for The Silmarillion and other pieces attributed to the elder Tolkien. C. Tolkien also did the maps for the LOTR. I don't know how much copyright he should be entitled to, but calling him worthless probably goes a little too far.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , the next of kin should not be in the picture here .
These are works that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons .
The worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any of the greedy schmucks .
Although the next of kin might generally not contribute much to the work , this is not necessarily the case here .
Christopher Tolkien , JRR 's kid , actually did the compilation and editing for The Silmarillion and other pieces attributed to the elder Tolkien .
C. Tolkien also did the maps for the LOTR .
I do n't know how much copyright he should be entitled to , but calling him worthless probably goes a little too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here.
These are works
that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons.
The
worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any of
the greedy schmucks.
Although the next of kin might generally not contribute much to the work, this is not necessarily the case here.
Christopher Tolkien, JRR's kid, actually did the compilation and editing for The Silmarillion and other pieces attributed to the elder Tolkien.
C. Tolkien also did the maps for the LOTR.
I don't know how much copyright he should be entitled to, but calling him worthless probably goes a little too far.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720885</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1247774400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am sick of LARPer's and LoTRer's. Go outside and get some air, they are just some freaking books made into pretty neat movies. No, I  am not a troll, I just play one on TV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sick of LARPer 's and LoTRer 's .
Go outside and get some air , they are just some freaking books made into pretty neat movies .
No , I am not a troll , I just play one on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sick of LARPer's and LoTRer's.
Go outside and get some air, they are just some freaking books made into pretty neat movies.
No, I  am not a troll, I just play one on TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733</id>
	<title>Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, if <em>I</em> were a Hobbit, I wouldn't let <em>any</em> lawsuit threaten my Hobbit-producing activities...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if I were a Hobbit , I would n't let any lawsuit threaten my Hobbit-producing activities.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if I were a Hobbit, I wouldn't let any lawsuit threaten my Hobbit-producing activities...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720849</id>
	<title>"option to terminate further rights to the author"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247774220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That really tells you all you need to know about them. I can understand that you want to get the money you deserve, which by the way they don't, since they didn't write the Lord of the Rings, nor the Silmarillion, nor the Hobbit, but even if they did, the fact alone that they want to prevent the creation of derivative works tells you they deserve neither the rights nor the profits.<br>Of course, reading about the wet fingertip accounting tactics, that pretty much amount to "oops, I came on the balance sheet, what was here before, I think it was: profit: $2,-" didn't make me feel very sympathetic to the studio either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That really tells you all you need to know about them .
I can understand that you want to get the money you deserve , which by the way they do n't , since they did n't write the Lord of the Rings , nor the Silmarillion , nor the Hobbit , but even if they did , the fact alone that they want to prevent the creation of derivative works tells you they deserve neither the rights nor the profits.Of course , reading about the wet fingertip accounting tactics , that pretty much amount to " oops , I came on the balance sheet , what was here before , I think it was : profit : $ 2,- " did n't make me feel very sympathetic to the studio either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That really tells you all you need to know about them.
I can understand that you want to get the money you deserve, which by the way they don't, since they didn't write the Lord of the Rings, nor the Silmarillion, nor the Hobbit, but even if they did, the fact alone that they want to prevent the creation of derivative works tells you they deserve neither the rights nor the profits.Of course, reading about the wet fingertip accounting tactics, that pretty much amount to "oops, I came on the balance sheet, what was here before, I think it was: profit: $2,-" didn't make me feel very sympathetic to the studio either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719707</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Gutierrez</author>
	<datestamp>1247769840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext> "Always ask for a piece of the gross, not the net. The net is fantasy.", Freakazoid to Bo-Ron, <i>Next Time, Phone Ahead</i> <br> <br>
Saturday morning cartoons really were educational television.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Always ask for a piece of the gross , not the net .
The net is fantasy .
" , Freakazoid to Bo-Ron , Next Time , Phone Ahead Saturday morning cartoons really were educational television .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Always ask for a piece of the gross, not the net.
The net is fantasy.
", Freakazoid to Bo-Ron, Next Time, Phone Ahead  
Saturday morning cartoons really were educational television.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720639</id>
	<title>Re:Read this elsewhere</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247773380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trolls only turn to stone in daylight - and, well, this is Slashdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trolls only turn to stone in daylight - and , well , this is Slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trolls only turn to stone in daylight - and, well, this is Slashdot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718577</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course. Life + X terms are stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
Life + X terms are stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
Life + X terms are stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718053</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1247764080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I despise Christopher Tolkien for shamelessly milking his dads work, I can't see how you'd blame him for suing when they didn't pay him a dime for the first three movies.</p><p>They made a deal, and, as with Jackson, they tried to claim that they didn't make any cash so they didn't owe him anything. Give me a fricking break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I despise Christopher Tolkien for shamelessly milking his dads work , I ca n't see how you 'd blame him for suing when they did n't pay him a dime for the first three movies.They made a deal , and , as with Jackson , they tried to claim that they did n't make any cash so they did n't owe him anything .
Give me a fricking break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I despise Christopher Tolkien for shamelessly milking his dads work, I can't see how you'd blame him for suing when they didn't pay him a dime for the first three movies.They made a deal, and, as with Jackson, they tried to claim that they didn't make any cash so they didn't owe him anything.
Give me a fricking break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722963</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1247739840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_accounting" title="wikipedia.org">Hollywood Accounting</a> [wikipedia.org]...</p></div><p>Who are the pirates now?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Full speed ahead, Mr. Cohen!<br>
<br>
Up, up, up your premium. Up, up, up your premium.<br>
Scribble away!<br>
Up, up, up your premium.<br>
And balance the books.<br>
Up, up, up your premium.<br>
Scribble away!<br>
Up, up, up your premium.<br>
But manage the books.<br>
Up, up, up.<br>
<br>
It's fun to charter an accountant<br>
And sail the wide accountancy,<br>
To find, explore the funds offshore<br>
And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy!<br>
<br>
It can be manly in insurance.<br>
We'll up your premium semi-annually.<br>
It's all tax deductible.<br>
We're fairly incorruptible,<br>
We're sailing on the wide accountancy!<br>
<br>
Oh, this is fun, Mr. Cohen!<br>
<br>
Sail away!...<br>
<br>
Up, up, up...<br>
<br>
Fetch me another exotic salute. To port! Bring her port to shell out! And the medium guys shell out to port! Balance the books! Bring me another small shellfish, Mr. Cohen...</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Hollywood Accounting [ wikipedia.org ] ...Who are the pirates now ? Full speed ahead , Mr. Cohen ! Up , up , up your premium .
Up , up , up your premium .
Scribble away !
Up , up , up your premium .
And balance the books .
Up , up , up your premium .
Scribble away !
Up , up , up your premium .
But manage the books .
Up , up , up .
It 's fun to charter an accountant And sail the wide accountancy , To find , explore the funds offshore And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy !
It can be manly in insurance .
We 'll up your premium semi-annually .
It 's all tax deductible .
We 're fairly incorruptible , We 're sailing on the wide accountancy !
Oh , this is fun , Mr. Cohen ! Sail away ! .. .
Up , up , up.. . Fetch me another exotic salute .
To port !
Bring her port to shell out !
And the medium guys shell out to port !
Balance the books !
Bring me another small shellfish , Mr. Cohen.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org]...Who are the pirates now?Full speed ahead, Mr. Cohen!

Up, up, up your premium.
Up, up, up your premium.
Scribble away!
Up, up, up your premium.
And balance the books.
Up, up, up your premium.
Scribble away!
Up, up, up your premium.
But manage the books.
Up, up, up.
It's fun to charter an accountant
And sail the wide accountancy,
To find, explore the funds offshore
And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy!
It can be manly in insurance.
We'll up your premium semi-annually.
It's all tax deductible.
We're fairly incorruptible,
We're sailing on the wide accountancy!
Oh, this is fun, Mr. Cohen!

Sail away!...
Up, up, up...

Fetch me another exotic salute.
To port!
Bring her port to shell out!
And the medium guys shell out to port!
Balance the books!
Bring me another small shellfish, Mr. Cohen...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719383</id>
	<title>The agreement was made 40 years ago.</title>
	<author>Noren</author>
	<datestamp>1247768820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The rights were sold 40 years ago, per the article.  At the time, the Tolkien estate did not exist- the author himself was alive to negotiate the conditions under which his works would be used.  So, it is your opinion that Tolkien was 'naive' to not have spelled out in detail who would be entitled to what percentage of the DVD sales revenue when he negotiated the deal in 1969?<br> <br>
If anything, it looks like he did pretty well for an agreement made in 1969 by trying to require a percentage of the gross, but he did permit certain expenses to be deducted which were then gamed by Hollywood accounting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rights were sold 40 years ago , per the article .
At the time , the Tolkien estate did not exist- the author himself was alive to negotiate the conditions under which his works would be used .
So , it is your opinion that Tolkien was 'naive ' to not have spelled out in detail who would be entitled to what percentage of the DVD sales revenue when he negotiated the deal in 1969 ?
If anything , it looks like he did pretty well for an agreement made in 1969 by trying to require a percentage of the gross , but he did permit certain expenses to be deducted which were then gamed by Hollywood accounting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rights were sold 40 years ago, per the article.
At the time, the Tolkien estate did not exist- the author himself was alive to negotiate the conditions under which his works would be used.
So, it is your opinion that Tolkien was 'naive' to not have spelled out in detail who would be entitled to what percentage of the DVD sales revenue when he negotiated the deal in 1969?
If anything, it looks like he did pretty well for an agreement made in 1969 by trying to require a percentage of the gross, but he did permit certain expenses to be deducted which were then gamed by Hollywood accounting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720997</id>
	<title>Public Domain Tolkien?  I Think NOT.</title>
	<author>flameproof</author>
	<datestamp>1247774820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally disagree with those of you who think that Tolkien's works should be in the public domain.  His heirs are still alive, he was ripped off repeatedly by pirates during his own lifetime here in America and their agreement with Time/Warner was a rock-solid percentage despite how successful the movies were.  There's a line, people, to the extent that you can personally gain from the genius of others.  Tolkien worked his entire adult life on that marvelous story.  I don't think it's asking too much at all that I (and the rip-off artists who run the entertainment industry) pay for the privilege of sharing that genius.<br>
<br>
Oh, and by-the-by, Gary Gygax was an evil piece of Balrog Shite.  <i>LONG LIVE THE JUDGE'S GUILD, SIR HUEY AND DAVE HARGRAVE!!!</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally disagree with those of you who think that Tolkien 's works should be in the public domain .
His heirs are still alive , he was ripped off repeatedly by pirates during his own lifetime here in America and their agreement with Time/Warner was a rock-solid percentage despite how successful the movies were .
There 's a line , people , to the extent that you can personally gain from the genius of others .
Tolkien worked his entire adult life on that marvelous story .
I do n't think it 's asking too much at all that I ( and the rip-off artists who run the entertainment industry ) pay for the privilege of sharing that genius .
Oh , and by-the-by , Gary Gygax was an evil piece of Balrog Shite .
LONG LIVE THE JUDGE 'S GUILD , SIR HUEY AND DAVE HARGRAVE ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally disagree with those of you who think that Tolkien's works should be in the public domain.
His heirs are still alive, he was ripped off repeatedly by pirates during his own lifetime here in America and their agreement with Time/Warner was a rock-solid percentage despite how successful the movies were.
There's a line, people, to the extent that you can personally gain from the genius of others.
Tolkien worked his entire adult life on that marvelous story.
I don't think it's asking too much at all that I (and the rip-off artists who run the entertainment industry) pay for the privilege of sharing that genius.
Oh, and by-the-by, Gary Gygax was an evil piece of Balrog Shite.
LONG LIVE THE JUDGE'S GUILD, SIR HUEY AND DAVE HARGRAVE!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718665</id>
	<title>Shocked, shocked I say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Apparently they haven't gotten any money due to some creative accounting."</p><p>I believe the term is "standard Hollywood accounting practice".</p><p>Oh, and I'll bet any royalty litigation subsequent to the film's release is probably in there as a "production cost" too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apparently they have n't gotten any money due to some creative accounting .
" I believe the term is " standard Hollywood accounting practice " .Oh , and I 'll bet any royalty litigation subsequent to the film 's release is probably in there as a " production cost " too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apparently they haven't gotten any money due to some creative accounting.
"I believe the term is "standard Hollywood accounting practice".Oh, and I'll bet any royalty litigation subsequent to the film's release is probably in there as a "production cost" too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721219</id>
	<title>Meh. The Hobbit Movie Already Exists:</title>
	<author>Radtastic</author>
	<datestamp>1247775840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may be only 97 seconds long, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">but it does star one of the most recognizable SF actors.</a> [youtube.com] out there.
<br> <br>
Seriously.  It doesn't get much better than that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be only 97 seconds long , but it does star one of the most recognizable SF actors .
[ youtube.com ] out there .
Seriously. It does n't get much better than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be only 97 seconds long, but it does star one of the most recognizable SF actors.
[youtube.com] out there.
Seriously.  It doesn't get much better than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722319</id>
	<title>Re:Thought experiment</title>
	<author>Jimmy\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1247736840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are proposing the death penalty for ordinary fraud. This is totally unreasonable, and the US Constitution prohibits disproportionate punishment, so it can't ever happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are proposing the death penalty for ordinary fraud .
This is totally unreasonable , and the US Constitution prohibits disproportionate punishment , so it ca n't ever happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are proposing the death penalty for ordinary fraud.
This is totally unreasonable, and the US Constitution prohibits disproportionate punishment, so it can't ever happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722011</id>
	<title>Re:Something Good Could Come of It</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1247735700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Lastly, was anyone ever wondering why there was no Lord of the Rings movies officially for so long?</p><p>Because Ralph Bakshi didn't finish his animated version from the 1970s, which only covered the first two books.</p><p>Eventually, the state of the (CGI) art became good enough that someone could dream of re-doing LoTR with actors supplying images as well as just voices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Lastly , was anyone ever wondering why there was no Lord of the Rings movies officially for so long ? Because Ralph Bakshi did n't finish his animated version from the 1970s , which only covered the first two books.Eventually , the state of the ( CGI ) art became good enough that someone could dream of re-doing LoTR with actors supplying images as well as just voices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Lastly, was anyone ever wondering why there was no Lord of the Rings movies officially for so long?Because Ralph Bakshi didn't finish his animated version from the 1970s, which only covered the first two books.Eventually, the state of the (CGI) art became good enough that someone could dream of re-doing LoTR with actors supplying images as well as just voices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718641</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>Aram Fingal</author>
	<datestamp>1247766000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These are works that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Actually, the LOTR movies included some scenes which were not in the LOTR books.  The scenes involving Isildur, for example, were from The Silmarillion or other books, published after J.R.R. Tolkien's death, with Christopher Tolkien as editor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are works that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons .
Actually , the LOTR movies included some scenes which were not in the LOTR books .
The scenes involving Isildur , for example , were from The Silmarillion or other books , published after J.R.R .
Tolkien 's death , with Christopher Tolkien as editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are works that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons.
Actually, the LOTR movies included some scenes which were not in the LOTR books.
The scenes involving Isildur, for example, were from The Silmarillion or other books, published after J.R.R.
Tolkien's death, with Christopher Tolkien as editor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723449</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247742060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whilst I don't have much sympathy for the movie companies, the Tolkien family are behaving on the same side as them, demanding vast amounts of money and rights to restrict other people from producing content, when they had nothing to do with creating the LOTR.</p><p>If anything, they're worse. At least when the movie companies whine, the people whining did create those films. This would be like in 50 years' time, the descendants of some movie exec whining about film piracy, of a film that they had nothing to do with creating.</p><p>Or a better analogy now would be Disney whining about Mickey Mouse becoming public domain, when no one in the company today was involved in the original production. All of them are talking nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whilst I do n't have much sympathy for the movie companies , the Tolkien family are behaving on the same side as them , demanding vast amounts of money and rights to restrict other people from producing content , when they had nothing to do with creating the LOTR.If anything , they 're worse .
At least when the movie companies whine , the people whining did create those films .
This would be like in 50 years ' time , the descendants of some movie exec whining about film piracy , of a film that they had nothing to do with creating.Or a better analogy now would be Disney whining about Mickey Mouse becoming public domain , when no one in the company today was involved in the original production .
All of them are talking nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whilst I don't have much sympathy for the movie companies, the Tolkien family are behaving on the same side as them, demanding vast amounts of money and rights to restrict other people from producing content, when they had nothing to do with creating the LOTR.If anything, they're worse.
At least when the movie companies whine, the people whining did create those films.
This would be like in 50 years' time, the descendants of some movie exec whining about film piracy, of a film that they had nothing to do with creating.Or a better analogy now would be Disney whining about Mickey Mouse becoming public domain, when no one in the company today was involved in the original production.
All of them are talking nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718841</id>
	<title>Should they also</title>
	<author>Pvt\_Ryan</author>
	<datestamp>1247766720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>take into account potential sales lost to piracy?
<br> <br>
After all it would have been revenue for the Company (at least that's what they tell us)..</htmltext>
<tokenext>take into account potential sales lost to piracy ?
After all it would have been revenue for the Company ( at least that 's what they tell us ) . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>take into account potential sales lost to piracy?
After all it would have been revenue for the Company (at least that's what they tell us)..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, you aren't a Hobbit, and this kind of stuff is so common it has it's own name and Wikipedia entry. Look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_accounting" title="wikipedia.org">Hollywood Accounting</a> [wikipedia.org]. It's pretty simple and extremely sleazy. Remember that profits are simply income minus expenses. If you make $100,000 but it costs you $40,000 in expenses, you have $60,000 in profits.</p><p>Most movie earnings are reported in gross sales. Profits are slim, on purpose.</p><p>Let's say you are a Hollywood producer.</p><p>1) Make a deal with somebody to "share the profits" by using their idea.<br>2) Produce the movie by hiring sub-contractor "companies" that happen to have you has the CEO. These "companies" are very expensive, and payed based on gross sales.<br>3) Movie gets produced, makes record sales.<br>4) The "companies" previously hired are payed based on the sales numbers, leaving no money left to call a "profit".<br>5) ???<br>6) Screwed partner makes nothing because there are no profits to share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , you are n't a Hobbit , and this kind of stuff is so common it has it 's own name and Wikipedia entry .
Look up Hollywood Accounting [ wikipedia.org ] .
It 's pretty simple and extremely sleazy .
Remember that profits are simply income minus expenses .
If you make $ 100,000 but it costs you $ 40,000 in expenses , you have $ 60,000 in profits.Most movie earnings are reported in gross sales .
Profits are slim , on purpose.Let 's say you are a Hollywood producer.1 ) Make a deal with somebody to " share the profits " by using their idea.2 ) Produce the movie by hiring sub-contractor " companies " that happen to have you has the CEO .
These " companies " are very expensive , and payed based on gross sales.3 ) Movie gets produced , makes record sales.4 ) The " companies " previously hired are payed based on the sales numbers , leaving no money left to call a " profit " .5 ) ? ?
? 6 ) Screwed partner makes nothing because there are no profits to share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, you aren't a Hobbit, and this kind of stuff is so common it has it's own name and Wikipedia entry.
Look up Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org].
It's pretty simple and extremely sleazy.
Remember that profits are simply income minus expenses.
If you make $100,000 but it costs you $40,000 in expenses, you have $60,000 in profits.Most movie earnings are reported in gross sales.
Profits are slim, on purpose.Let's say you are a Hollywood producer.1) Make a deal with somebody to "share the profits" by using their idea.2) Produce the movie by hiring sub-contractor "companies" that happen to have you has the CEO.
These "companies" are very expensive, and payed based on gross sales.3) Movie gets produced, makes record sales.4) The "companies" previously hired are payed based on the sales numbers, leaving no money left to call a "profit".5) ??
?6) Screwed partner makes nothing because there are no profits to share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717999</id>
	<title>I hope they all die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the heirs that are part of this should just keel over and die.  To a midget, for some poetic justice.</p><p>They truly have no redeeming value in this universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the heirs that are part of this should just keel over and die .
To a midget , for some poetic justice.They truly have no redeeming value in this universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the heirs that are part of this should just keel over and die.
To a midget, for some poetic justice.They truly have no redeeming value in this universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28732717</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>h3llfish</author>
	<datestamp>1247857740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are other ways to screw content creators out of their "points".  When Fox sold the syndication rights to The X Files, they sold them to themselves (F/X network)... for cheap.  That meant that there wasn't nearly as much profit to share with David Duchovney and others who had a share coming to them.  Series creator Chris Carter sued Fox, which is one of the reasons the second X Files movie took so long to get started.<br> <br>
The thing is, this suit is not being initiated by the creator of the original content... this is his descendants wanting money for work that their ancestor did in 1937.  I'm all for providing incentive for people to create original works, but this is ridiculous.  No one deserves unearned income for work that grampa did 75 years ago.  The copyright clause of the US constitution says that copyrights should be for a "limited time".  I think that 75 years is functionally an unlimited time, given that it is very close to the average life expectancy for a person.  Wouldn't 25 years or even 50 have been plenty?  Would anyone suggest that if copyrights were only for 50 years, Tolkein would never have written his books?  Preposterous!</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other ways to screw content creators out of their " points " .
When Fox sold the syndication rights to The X Files , they sold them to themselves ( F/X network ) ... for cheap .
That meant that there was n't nearly as much profit to share with David Duchovney and others who had a share coming to them .
Series creator Chris Carter sued Fox , which is one of the reasons the second X Files movie took so long to get started .
The thing is , this suit is not being initiated by the creator of the original content... this is his descendants wanting money for work that their ancestor did in 1937 .
I 'm all for providing incentive for people to create original works , but this is ridiculous .
No one deserves unearned income for work that grampa did 75 years ago .
The copyright clause of the US constitution says that copyrights should be for a " limited time " .
I think that 75 years is functionally an unlimited time , given that it is very close to the average life expectancy for a person .
Would n't 25 years or even 50 have been plenty ?
Would anyone suggest that if copyrights were only for 50 years , Tolkein would never have written his books ?
Preposterous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other ways to screw content creators out of their "points".
When Fox sold the syndication rights to The X Files, they sold them to themselves (F/X network)... for cheap.
That meant that there wasn't nearly as much profit to share with David Duchovney and others who had a share coming to them.
Series creator Chris Carter sued Fox, which is one of the reasons the second X Files movie took so long to get started.
The thing is, this suit is not being initiated by the creator of the original content... this is his descendants wanting money for work that their ancestor did in 1937.
I'm all for providing incentive for people to create original works, but this is ridiculous.
No one deserves unearned income for work that grampa did 75 years ago.
The copyright clause of the US constitution says that copyrights should be for a "limited time".
I think that 75 years is functionally an unlimited time, given that it is very close to the average life expectancy for a person.
Wouldn't 25 years or even 50 have been plenty?
Would anyone suggest that if copyrights were only for 50 years, Tolkein would never have written his books?
Preposterous!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961</id>
	<title>Re:Read this elsewhere</title>
	<author>Niris</author>
	<datestamp>1247763720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You, good sir, are the first Troll in a thread about the Hobbit. Expect to be turned to stone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You , good sir , are the first Troll in a thread about the Hobbit .
Expect to be turned to stone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, good sir, are the first Troll in a thread about the Hobbit.
Expect to be turned to stone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718351</id>
	<title>Re:Then explain this</title>
	<author>Tr3vin</author>
	<datestamp>1247765040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin. There are tons of notes and papers the Tolkien kept while writing his stories. Many of these offer insight into the world of Middle Earth, and would not have been easily accessible if it wasn't for the work of his son. Christopher Tolkien has spent a great deal of time going through his father's work, assembling notes from various sources to try to provide a more detailed history of Middle Earth. While the heirs aren't responsible for the original tale, they have done there share of work to get the story behind the story out and available to the public. Without the background, creating a movie like LotR would be much more difficult. The entire mythos was not well documented within the confines of the books. There were a lot of details that don't fit nicely within story form that were important to the movie. One of the biggest examples is the Elvish language. Much of the language has been put together from his original notes, which have been assembled by Christopher over the years.
<br>
<br>
This is definitely not a case were the children are sitting around trying to bum money off of their parent's work. I am very thankful for their contributions. Without their work, my knowledge of Tolkien would probably be limited to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin .
There are tons of notes and papers the Tolkien kept while writing his stories .
Many of these offer insight into the world of Middle Earth , and would not have been easily accessible if it was n't for the work of his son .
Christopher Tolkien has spent a great deal of time going through his father 's work , assembling notes from various sources to try to provide a more detailed history of Middle Earth .
While the heirs are n't responsible for the original tale , they have done there share of work to get the story behind the story out and available to the public .
Without the background , creating a movie like LotR would be much more difficult .
The entire mythos was not well documented within the confines of the books .
There were a lot of details that do n't fit nicely within story form that were important to the movie .
One of the biggest examples is the Elvish language .
Much of the language has been put together from his original notes , which have been assembled by Christopher over the years .
This is definitely not a case were the children are sitting around trying to bum money off of their parent 's work .
I am very thankful for their contributions .
Without their work , my knowledge of Tolkien would probably be limited to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin.
There are tons of notes and papers the Tolkien kept while writing his stories.
Many of these offer insight into the world of Middle Earth, and would not have been easily accessible if it wasn't for the work of his son.
Christopher Tolkien has spent a great deal of time going through his father's work, assembling notes from various sources to try to provide a more detailed history of Middle Earth.
While the heirs aren't responsible for the original tale, they have done there share of work to get the story behind the story out and available to the public.
Without the background, creating a movie like LotR would be much more difficult.
The entire mythos was not well documented within the confines of the books.
There were a lot of details that don't fit nicely within story form that were important to the movie.
One of the biggest examples is the Elvish language.
Much of the language has been put together from his original notes, which have been assembled by Christopher over the years.
This is definitely not a case were the children are sitting around trying to bum money off of their parent's work.
I am very thankful for their contributions.
Without their work, my knowledge of Tolkien would probably be limited to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718365</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>Emb3rz</author>
	<datestamp>1247765100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sincerely hope that it is not commonly held opinion that the Bible is "written about him [Adam]." He is the first human that the Bible describes, and mention is made of him also in the Christian Greek scriptures, but the Bible is about much more than simply Adam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sincerely hope that it is not commonly held opinion that the Bible is " written about him [ Adam ] .
" He is the first human that the Bible describes , and mention is made of him also in the Christian Greek scriptures , but the Bible is about much more than simply Adam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sincerely hope that it is not commonly held opinion that the Bible is "written about him [Adam].
" He is the first human that the Bible describes, and mention is made of him also in the Christian Greek scriptures, but the Bible is about much more than simply Adam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719535</id>
	<title>Re:Read this elsewhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247769360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not exactly - he's safe in the darkness of his parents' basement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not exactly - he 's safe in the darkness of his parents ' basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not exactly - he's safe in the darkness of his parents' basement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28727771</id>
	<title>Re:Then explain this</title>
	<author>Hazelnut</author>
	<datestamp>1247833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you for posting a reasonable and rational summary.

People who are so greedy like these studio execs make me want to believe in Hell !!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for posting a reasonable and rational summary .
People who are so greedy like these studio execs make me want to believe in Hell !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for posting a reasonable and rational summary.
People who are so greedy like these studio execs make me want to believe in Hell !
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721861</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone own their own ideas anymore?</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1247735100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS.</i></p><p>Because Tolkien is dead.  Dead men do not need to collect royalties, because no amount of financial incentive will permit them to create more new works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it 's now no longer HIS but OURS.Because Tolkien is dead .
Dead men do not need to collect royalties , because no amount of financial incentive will permit them to create more new works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS.Because Tolkien is dead.
Dead men do not need to collect royalties, because no amount of financial incentive will permit them to create more new works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718971</id>
	<title>Re:Read this elsewhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*slow clap*</p><p>Good work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* slow clap * Good work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*slow clap*Good work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718949</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247767140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brought to you by the same people who are so deeply concerned that someone might copy a movie without paying for it. Of course, the whole industry in Hollywood started out dodging Edison's patent royalties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brought to you by the same people who are so deeply concerned that someone might copy a movie without paying for it .
Of course , the whole industry in Hollywood started out dodging Edison 's patent royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brought to you by the same people who are so deeply concerned that someone might copy a movie without paying for it.
Of course, the whole industry in Hollywood started out dodging Edison's patent royalties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719071</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone own their own ideas anymore?</title>
	<author>Whorhay</author>
	<datestamp>1247767620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a fight between a bunch of chuckle heads.</p><p>Most people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. probably feel that copyright should not extend long enough for Tolkien's heirs to still be expecting money from their fathers books.</p><p>And most people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. probably also find the business practices like the infamous Hollywood Accounting techniques to be despicable and essentially outright fraud.</p><p>Personally I'd like to see them all DIAF right after producing the movie for me to watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a fight between a bunch of chuckle heads.Most people on / .
probably feel that copyright should not extend long enough for Tolkien 's heirs to still be expecting money from their fathers books.And most people on / .
probably also find the business practices like the infamous Hollywood Accounting techniques to be despicable and essentially outright fraud.Personally I 'd like to see them all DIAF right after producing the movie for me to watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a fight between a bunch of chuckle heads.Most people on /.
probably feel that copyright should not extend long enough for Tolkien's heirs to still be expecting money from their fathers books.And most people on /.
probably also find the business practices like the infamous Hollywood Accounting techniques to be despicable and essentially outright fraud.Personally I'd like to see them all DIAF right after producing the movie for me to watch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719301</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1247768580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I can fill in ??? on this one. From the stories I've heard, expenses from completely different projects can get charged to your film, reducing the profit even farther.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I can fill in ? ? ?
on this one .
From the stories I 've heard , expenses from completely different projects can get charged to your film , reducing the profit even farther .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I can fill in ???
on this one.
From the stories I've heard, expenses from completely different projects can get charged to your film, reducing the profit even farther.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718075</id>
	<title>Something Good Could Come of It</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1247764200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.</p></div><p>Remember that these "greedy schmucks" are the ones lobbying and influencing the law.  You, I, the Slashdot community, we do not.  But we are tax paying constituents.  The only time we influence this is when we vote--and let's face it, it's not a voting issue.  <br> <br>

When Sonny Bono and Walt Disney effectively controlled the government into changing these laws, they were done selfishly.  Nowhere were we represented.  To say that Senator Bono acted with only his constituents in mind is a joke.  <br> <br>

So suddenly the double edged sword is coming back to cut one of the prime promoters today of these laws.  Historically these term limits of enforceable copyright have only gotten longer.  And their implications for the internet and digital media has been more than encumbering.  I'm not saying these laws don't help the big companies and artists make more money.  I'm only saying that it's getting to a ridiculous point.  Time Warner/New Line Cinema might take it so hard from the Tolkien family that they realize their lost future profits 50 years from now is a small price to pay compared to all the material they could have in public domain to make movies and derivative works from.  <br> <br>

Lastly, was anyone ever wondering why there was no Lord of the Rings movies officially for so long?  It's because the Tolkein family was just looking for someone to get screwed by.  They probably saw through all the other scams.  <br> <br>

Hopefully this is a wake up call to those who have extended copyright for far too long.  It will only start hurting themselves and actually inhibiting/endangering their profession.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...on the one hand , the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.Remember that these " greedy schmucks " are the ones lobbying and influencing the law .
You , I , the Slashdot community , we do not .
But we are tax paying constituents .
The only time we influence this is when we vote--and let 's face it , it 's not a voting issue .
When Sonny Bono and Walt Disney effectively controlled the government into changing these laws , they were done selfishly .
Nowhere were we represented .
To say that Senator Bono acted with only his constituents in mind is a joke .
So suddenly the double edged sword is coming back to cut one of the prime promoters today of these laws .
Historically these term limits of enforceable copyright have only gotten longer .
And their implications for the internet and digital media has been more than encumbering .
I 'm not saying these laws do n't help the big companies and artists make more money .
I 'm only saying that it 's getting to a ridiculous point .
Time Warner/New Line Cinema might take it so hard from the Tolkien family that they realize their lost future profits 50 years from now is a small price to pay compared to all the material they could have in public domain to make movies and derivative works from .
Lastly , was anyone ever wondering why there was no Lord of the Rings movies officially for so long ?
It 's because the Tolkein family was just looking for someone to get screwed by .
They probably saw through all the other scams .
Hopefully this is a wake up call to those who have extended copyright for far too long .
It will only start hurting themselves and actually inhibiting/endangering their profession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.Remember that these "greedy schmucks" are the ones lobbying and influencing the law.
You, I, the Slashdot community, we do not.
But we are tax paying constituents.
The only time we influence this is when we vote--and let's face it, it's not a voting issue.
When Sonny Bono and Walt Disney effectively controlled the government into changing these laws, they were done selfishly.
Nowhere were we represented.
To say that Senator Bono acted with only his constituents in mind is a joke.
So suddenly the double edged sword is coming back to cut one of the prime promoters today of these laws.
Historically these term limits of enforceable copyright have only gotten longer.
And their implications for the internet and digital media has been more than encumbering.
I'm not saying these laws don't help the big companies and artists make more money.
I'm only saying that it's getting to a ridiculous point.
Time Warner/New Line Cinema might take it so hard from the Tolkien family that they realize their lost future profits 50 years from now is a small price to pay compared to all the material they could have in public domain to make movies and derivative works from.
Lastly, was anyone ever wondering why there was no Lord of the Rings movies officially for so long?
It's because the Tolkein family was just looking for someone to get screwed by.
They probably saw through all the other scams.
Hopefully this is a wake up call to those who have extended copyright for far too long.
It will only start hurting themselves and actually inhibiting/endangering their profession.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718179</id>
	<title>Re:Thought experiment</title>
	<author>arthurp</author>
	<datestamp>1247764500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think you should hold the accountants liable. Hold the company liable. And punish it with death by revoking it's charter and liquidating it or something like that. And maybe the government could take control of the brand and certain critical assets so the company cannot just reappear under new ownership.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you should hold the accountants liable .
Hold the company liable .
And punish it with death by revoking it 's charter and liquidating it or something like that .
And maybe the government could take control of the brand and certain critical assets so the company can not just reappear under new ownership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you should hold the accountants liable.
Hold the company liable.
And punish it with death by revoking it's charter and liquidating it or something like that.
And maybe the government could take control of the brand and certain critical assets so the company cannot just reappear under new ownership.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718321</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any of<br>the greedy schmucks.</i></p><p>If I created a copyrighted work then I would hope that my children would be able to benefit from it, especially if I were to die unexpectedly, such as from a car crash or terminal cancer. Of course there should be a limit to how long after death someone should receive the benefits of copyright (not 90 years + life of the author, or whatever it is now), but just because someone has died does not mean all of their works should be released to public domain. I'm not saying that you are implying that, but just that some people have this radical view about how and when copyrighted works should be public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any ofthe greedy schmucks.If I created a copyrighted work then I would hope that my children would be able to benefit from it , especially if I were to die unexpectedly , such as from a car crash or terminal cancer .
Of course there should be a limit to how long after death someone should receive the benefits of copyright ( not 90 years + life of the author , or whatever it is now ) , but just because someone has died does not mean all of their works should be released to public domain .
I 'm not saying that you are implying that , but just that some people have this radical view about how and when copyrighted works should be public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any ofthe greedy schmucks.If I created a copyrighted work then I would hope that my children would be able to benefit from it, especially if I were to die unexpectedly, such as from a car crash or terminal cancer.
Of course there should be a limit to how long after death someone should receive the benefits of copyright (not 90 years + life of the author, or whatever it is now), but just because someone has died does not mean all of their works should be released to public domain.
I'm not saying that you are implying that, but just that some people have this radical view about how and when copyrighted works should be public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753</id>
	<title>Damn leeches</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247763000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These books should be public domain by now.<br>God damn extended copyright might kill another production.</p><p>Ob. quote:</p><p>
&nbsp; "Is that a Hobbit over there?"</p><p>"No, it's a hobo and a rabbit, but they're making a hobbit."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These books should be public domain by now.God damn extended copyright might kill another production.Ob .
quote :   " Is that a Hobbit over there ?
" " No , it 's a hobo and a rabbit , but they 're making a hobbit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These books should be public domain by now.God damn extended copyright might kill another production.Ob.
quote:
  "Is that a Hobbit over there?
""No, it's a hobo and a rabbit, but they're making a hobbit.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28746513</id>
	<title>Re:Prince, Michelle Shocked</title>
	<author>\_Ludwig</author>
	<datestamp>1247999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And there's the classic Steve Albini <a href="http://www.negativland.com/albini.html" title="negativland.com">analysis</a> [negativland.com] of how a typical major label contract shakes out monetarily.  (Summary: The band gets screwed.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there 's the classic Steve Albini analysis [ negativland.com ] of how a typical major label contract shakes out monetarily .
( Summary : The band gets screwed .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there's the classic Steve Albini analysis [negativland.com] of how a typical major label contract shakes out monetarily.
(Summary: The band gets screwed.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687</id>
	<title>Does anyone own their own ideas anymore?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book.  Does he (or even his family) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying?  Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS.  Communism?</p><p>On a separate but related note.... if Hollywood studios came up with their OWN IDEAS instead of just using comics / books / other movies as a basis for new scripts, they WOULD NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.  Screenwriters need to start coming up with original ideas, not just remakes of movies from the 50s or childrens cartoons from the 80s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book .
Does he ( or even his family ) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying ?
Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it 's now no longer HIS but OURS .
Communism ? On a separate but related note.... if Hollywood studios came up with their OWN IDEAS instead of just using comics / books / other movies as a basis for new scripts , they WOULD NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS .
Screenwriters need to start coming up with original ideas , not just remakes of movies from the 50s or childrens cartoons from the 80s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book.
Does he (or even his family) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying?
Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS.
Communism?On a separate but related note.... if Hollywood studios came up with their OWN IDEAS instead of just using comics / books / other movies as a basis for new scripts, they WOULD NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.
Screenwriters need to start coming up with original ideas, not just remakes of movies from the 50s or childrens cartoons from the 80s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717843</id>
	<title>They crossed up their net and gross reciepts...</title>
	<author>dfenstrate</author>
	<datestamp>1247763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like the deal was done maybe 40 years ago:</p><p><i>Under the contract, New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts, after deducting 2.6 times the production costs, plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount, according to Eskenazi. </i>(from TFA)</p><p>Nowadays it seems as though even the average slashdotter knows you take a portion of gross, because nothing involving MPAA or RIAA related-companies ever clears a 'net profit' (wink wink).</p><p>It looks like Tolkien &amp; co where less saavy 40 years ago, and essentially signed up to get screwed. I hope the movies were profitable enough that they can still clear some money for the family, but 2.6 times production costs of those movies is a hell of a lot, and 'advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount'- especially if that amount was a 1969 dollar amount, and not a percent-well, they could really end up with a contractually dictated 'nothing.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the deal was done maybe 40 years ago : Under the contract , New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts , after deducting 2.6 times the production costs , plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount , according to Eskenazi .
( from TFA ) Nowadays it seems as though even the average slashdotter knows you take a portion of gross , because nothing involving MPAA or RIAA related-companies ever clears a 'net profit ' ( wink wink ) .It looks like Tolkien &amp; co where less saavy 40 years ago , and essentially signed up to get screwed .
I hope the movies were profitable enough that they can still clear some money for the family , but 2.6 times production costs of those movies is a hell of a lot , and 'advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount'- especially if that amount was a 1969 dollar amount , and not a percent-well , they could really end up with a contractually dictated 'nothing .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the deal was done maybe 40 years ago:Under the contract, New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts, after deducting 2.6 times the production costs, plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount, according to Eskenazi.
(from TFA)Nowadays it seems as though even the average slashdotter knows you take a portion of gross, because nothing involving MPAA or RIAA related-companies ever clears a 'net profit' (wink wink).It looks like Tolkien &amp; co where less saavy 40 years ago, and essentially signed up to get screwed.
I hope the movies were profitable enough that they can still clear some money for the family, but 2.6 times production costs of those movies is a hell of a lot, and 'advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount'- especially if that amount was a 1969 dollar amount, and not a percent-well, they could really end up with a contractually dictated 'nothing.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718877</id>
	<title>Re:LotR</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1247766900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do I get sick, but you get ill?</p><p>Why do you buy things, but I purchase them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do I get sick , but you get ill ? Why do you buy things , but I purchase them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do I get sick, but you get ill?Why do you buy things, but I purchase them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718541</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tolkein actually had a share of revenue, not profits. 7.5\% of revenue - (2.6 * costs). Somehow with $6 billion revenue, the movie costs are $2.3 billion!</p><p>I want to see the New Line Cinema aircraft carrier that was charged to this account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tolkein actually had a share of revenue , not profits .
7.5 \ % of revenue - ( 2.6 * costs ) .
Somehow with $ 6 billion revenue , the movie costs are $ 2.3 billion ! I want to see the New Line Cinema aircraft carrier that was charged to this account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tolkein actually had a share of revenue, not profits.
7.5\% of revenue - (2.6 * costs).
Somehow with $6 billion revenue, the movie costs are $2.3 billion!I want to see the New Line Cinema aircraft carrier that was charged to this account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723033</id>
	<title>What the studios will do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can just imagine the testimony now:</p><p>Lawyer: So you lost money on the LOTR films?<br>Studio: That's right. It says so right in our documents.<br>Lawyer: But didn't a lot of people go to see it? Didn't you sell a lot of DVDs? And merchandise?<br>Studio: Well, yes, but we had a lot of expenses. Salaries. Marketing promotions? Directors and producers aren't cheap.<br>Lawyer: I see. Aren't you planning on making another Tolkien film? The Hobbit?<br>Studio: Yes, we're very excited. It will be the most exciting film since the LOTR series. And it will be bigger. And better. It's going to be fantastic.<br>Lawyer: Would you say that you're thrilled about it?<br>Studio: Are you kidding? It's freakin' awesome. It's going to be like really fantastic sex.<br>Audience: Chuckles<br>Lawyer: Will you promote it?<br>Studio: Oh yes. We've started planning for the marketing campaign already. Burger King will be doing a promotion. Mattel is doing the toys. Marvel will be doing a comic book. Dateline, Oprah, Today -- well, you name it, they're all planning on doing full shows on it.<br>Lawyer: I see. But it can't be as good, can it. I mean, Peter Jackson was the original director/producer.<br>Studio: Oh, Peter Jackson will be involved again. He'll be the executive producer.<br>Lawyer: Are you paying him?<br>Studio: Chuckle. Oh yes. Most movies that get made have budgets smaller than what Jackson will make.<br>Lawyer: Do you plan on making any money on The Hobbit?<br>Studio: Oh definit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... . er, I mean no wa. . . er, , , umm, . . . , well, you know, . . . , it's hard to know with these movies, . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>., um<br>Lawyer: I'm just asking, because, you know, you didn't make any on the last films, and well, I was wondering, well, if you lost money on the last series, . . . , well, . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>., why are you making more? Is "losing money", as you say that most films like LOTR do, really as good as "really great sex"?<br>Audience: Hilarious non-stop laughter that lasts for 5 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can just imagine the testimony now : Lawyer : So you lost money on the LOTR films ? Studio : That 's right .
It says so right in our documents.Lawyer : But did n't a lot of people go to see it ?
Did n't you sell a lot of DVDs ?
And merchandise ? Studio : Well , yes , but we had a lot of expenses .
Salaries. Marketing promotions ?
Directors and producers are n't cheap.Lawyer : I see .
Are n't you planning on making another Tolkien film ?
The Hobbit ? Studio : Yes , we 're very excited .
It will be the most exciting film since the LOTR series .
And it will be bigger .
And better .
It 's going to be fantastic.Lawyer : Would you say that you 're thrilled about it ? Studio : Are you kidding ?
It 's freakin ' awesome .
It 's going to be like really fantastic sex.Audience : ChucklesLawyer : Will you promote it ? Studio : Oh yes .
We 've started planning for the marketing campaign already .
Burger King will be doing a promotion .
Mattel is doing the toys .
Marvel will be doing a comic book .
Dateline , Oprah , Today -- well , you name it , they 're all planning on doing full shows on it.Lawyer : I see .
But it ca n't be as good , can it .
I mean , Peter Jackson was the original director/producer.Studio : Oh , Peter Jackson will be involved again .
He 'll be the executive producer.Lawyer : Are you paying him ? Studio : Chuckle .
Oh yes .
Most movies that get made have budgets smaller than what Jackson will make.Lawyer : Do you plan on making any money on The Hobbit ? Studio : Oh definit ... . er , I mean no wa .
. .
er , , , umm , .
. .
, well , you know , .
. .
, it 's hard to know with these movies , .
. . , umLawyer : I 'm just asking , because , you know , you did n't make any on the last films , and well , I was wondering , well , if you lost money on the last series , .
. .
, well , .
. . , why are you making more ?
Is " losing money " , as you say that most films like LOTR do , really as good as " really great sex " ? Audience : Hilarious non-stop laughter that lasts for 5 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can just imagine the testimony now:Lawyer: So you lost money on the LOTR films?Studio: That's right.
It says so right in our documents.Lawyer: But didn't a lot of people go to see it?
Didn't you sell a lot of DVDs?
And merchandise?Studio: Well, yes, but we had a lot of expenses.
Salaries. Marketing promotions?
Directors and producers aren't cheap.Lawyer: I see.
Aren't you planning on making another Tolkien film?
The Hobbit?Studio: Yes, we're very excited.
It will be the most exciting film since the LOTR series.
And it will be bigger.
And better.
It's going to be fantastic.Lawyer: Would you say that you're thrilled about it?Studio: Are you kidding?
It's freakin' awesome.
It's going to be like really fantastic sex.Audience: ChucklesLawyer: Will you promote it?Studio: Oh yes.
We've started planning for the marketing campaign already.
Burger King will be doing a promotion.
Mattel is doing the toys.
Marvel will be doing a comic book.
Dateline, Oprah, Today -- well, you name it, they're all planning on doing full shows on it.Lawyer: I see.
But it can't be as good, can it.
I mean, Peter Jackson was the original director/producer.Studio: Oh, Peter Jackson will be involved again.
He'll be the executive producer.Lawyer: Are you paying him?Studio: Chuckle.
Oh yes.
Most movies that get made have budgets smaller than what Jackson will make.Lawyer: Do you plan on making any money on The Hobbit?Studio: Oh definit ... . er, I mean no wa.
. .
er, , , umm, .
. .
, well, you know, .
. .
, it's hard to know with these movies, .
. ., umLawyer: I'm just asking, because, you know, you didn't make any on the last films, and well, I was wondering, well, if you lost money on the last series, .
. .
, well, .
. ., why are you making more?
Is "losing money", as you say that most films like LOTR do, really as good as "really great sex"?Audience: Hilarious non-stop laughter that lasts for 5 minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717727</id>
	<title>Read this elsewhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, I'd read this elsewhere and wondered why I hadn't seen it on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I 'd read this elsewhere and wondered why I had n't seen it on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I'd read this elsewhere and wondered why I hadn't seen it on slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722369</id>
	<title>Re:Thought experiment</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1247737020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Punishment (anykind, not just death) really only works as a deterrent for white collar criminals.</p><p>For other crimes, motivated by strong emotion or (perceived) necessity, in the heat of the moment, one doesn't much consider the consequences in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Punishment ( anykind , not just death ) really only works as a deterrent for white collar criminals.For other crimes , motivated by strong emotion or ( perceived ) necessity , in the heat of the moment , one does n't much consider the consequences in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Punishment (anykind, not just death) really only works as a deterrent for white collar criminals.For other crimes, motivated by strong emotion or (perceived) necessity, in the heat of the moment, one doesn't much consider the consequences in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718475</id>
	<title>Re:Then explain this</title>
	<author>bonze</author>
	<datestamp>1247765400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From Wikipedia:  "Tolkien never expected his stories to become popular, but by sheer accident a book he had written some years before for his own children, called The Hobbit, came in 1936 to the attention of Susan Dagnall, an employee of the London publishing firm George Allen &amp; Unwin, who persuaded him to submit it for publication."

So:  no heirs:  no hobbits:  no <i>precious</i> for Time Warner to covet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Wikipedia : " Tolkien never expected his stories to become popular , but by sheer accident a book he had written some years before for his own children , called The Hobbit , came in 1936 to the attention of Susan Dagnall , an employee of the London publishing firm George Allen &amp; Unwin , who persuaded him to submit it for publication .
" So : no heirs : no hobbits : no precious for Time Warner to covet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Wikipedia:  "Tolkien never expected his stories to become popular, but by sheer accident a book he had written some years before for his own children, called The Hobbit, came in 1936 to the attention of Susan Dagnall, an employee of the London publishing firm George Allen &amp; Unwin, who persuaded him to submit it for publication.
"

So:  no heirs:  no hobbits:  no precious for Time Warner to covet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28726019</id>
	<title>Re:LotR</title>
	<author>KingOfTheDustBunnies</author>
	<datestamp>1247764140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But of course it's not <i>Lord of the Rings</i> but <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>, and thus we should initialize it as TLotR.</p><p>Join me, and our combined pedantry will make the world a better place!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But of course it 's not Lord of the Rings but The Lord of the Rings , and thus we should initialize it as TLotR.Join me , and our combined pedantry will make the world a better place !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But of course it's not Lord of the Rings but The Lord of the Rings, and thus we should initialize it as TLotR.Join me, and our combined pedantry will make the world a better place!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721221</id>
	<title>If what you already got isnt enough,</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247775840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we can just cut back on the tolkien shit totally, and you can shove up the now never-to-be-made profits you were going to make from your deceased father's creation up your butt. the country you are in is already fucked up regarding copyright laws, dont prove its critics wrong. or, rather, go ahead and prove it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we can just cut back on the tolkien shit totally , and you can shove up the now never-to-be-made profits you were going to make from your deceased father 's creation up your butt .
the country you are in is already fucked up regarding copyright laws , dont prove its critics wrong .
or , rather , go ahead and prove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we can just cut back on the tolkien shit totally, and you can shove up the now never-to-be-made profits you were going to make from your deceased father's creation up your butt.
the country you are in is already fucked up regarding copyright laws, dont prove its critics wrong.
or, rather, go ahead and prove it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719623</id>
	<title>Prince, Michelle Shocked</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1247769600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Courtney Love, Joni Mitchell the list goes on.</p><p>Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol, a stroke of genius because the contract he was under said he could use his own name if he jumped ship. He became "the artist formerly known as Prince".</p><p>Courtney Love got hosed and wrote about how a band with a platinum album could end up scraping by on whatever a record company threw them.<br><a href="http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/" title="salon.com">http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/</a> [salon.com]</p><p>Joni Mitchell got hosed, and put an article about it up on the web.<br>(can't find the link)</p><p>Michelle Shocked couldn't record an album for 10 years due to a bad contract.</p><p>Beck accepted the lowest contract offer he got because it gave him the most control.</p><p>It's not just the movie companies.</p><p>Book publishers too. God help you if you accept an advance or or go on a book tour. The charge backs can be horrific. Don't ever let them buy you anything. They'll overcharge you for any and all services. the limo to the airport or the venue might seem nice, but they will charge you back for it.</p><p>The opening night gala for the movie opening, book openings. Etc.</p><p>The word "pimps" comes to mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Courtney Love , Joni Mitchell the list goes on.Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol , a stroke of genius because the contract he was under said he could use his own name if he jumped ship .
He became " the artist formerly known as Prince " .Courtney Love got hosed and wrote about how a band with a platinum album could end up scraping by on whatever a record company threw them.http : //archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ [ salon.com ] Joni Mitchell got hosed , and put an article about it up on the web .
( ca n't find the link ) Michelle Shocked could n't record an album for 10 years due to a bad contract.Beck accepted the lowest contract offer he got because it gave him the most control.It 's not just the movie companies.Book publishers too .
God help you if you accept an advance or or go on a book tour .
The charge backs can be horrific .
Do n't ever let them buy you anything .
They 'll overcharge you for any and all services .
the limo to the airport or the venue might seem nice , but they will charge you back for it.The opening night gala for the movie opening , book openings .
Etc.The word " pimps " comes to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courtney Love, Joni Mitchell the list goes on.Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol, a stroke of genius because the contract he was under said he could use his own name if he jumped ship.
He became "the artist formerly known as Prince".Courtney Love got hosed and wrote about how a band with a platinum album could end up scraping by on whatever a record company threw them.http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ [salon.com]Joni Mitchell got hosed, and put an article about it up on the web.
(can't find the link)Michelle Shocked couldn't record an album for 10 years due to a bad contract.Beck accepted the lowest contract offer he got because it gave him the most control.It's not just the movie companies.Book publishers too.
God help you if you accept an advance or or go on a book tour.
The charge backs can be horrific.
Don't ever let them buy you anything.
They'll overcharge you for any and all services.
the limo to the airport or the venue might seem nice, but they will charge you back for it.The opening night gala for the movie opening, book openings.
Etc.The word "pimps" comes to mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718037</id>
	<title>I'd normally side with the family, but...</title>
	<author>shawnmchorse</author>
	<datestamp>1247764020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it weren't for the deal that J.R.R. made with Saul Zaentz way back when, we wouldn't have any of the Lord of the Rings movies in the first place.  Nor the Lord of the Rings Online game (which I happen to play).  Nor any number of other things that may have first turned people on to Tolkien, including the old pen and paper Middle Earth RPG system.</p><p>Christopher Tolkien has had control over the rights to things like The Silmarillion, and is notoriously limited in what he'll allow people to do in relation to it.  I'd hate to think of what would happen (or more to the point, not happen) if he were able to somehow get back control over The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were n't for the deal that J.R.R .
made with Saul Zaentz way back when , we would n't have any of the Lord of the Rings movies in the first place .
Nor the Lord of the Rings Online game ( which I happen to play ) .
Nor any number of other things that may have first turned people on to Tolkien , including the old pen and paper Middle Earth RPG system.Christopher Tolkien has had control over the rights to things like The Silmarillion , and is notoriously limited in what he 'll allow people to do in relation to it .
I 'd hate to think of what would happen ( or more to the point , not happen ) if he were able to somehow get back control over The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it weren't for the deal that J.R.R.
made with Saul Zaentz way back when, we wouldn't have any of the Lord of the Rings movies in the first place.
Nor the Lord of the Rings Online game (which I happen to play).
Nor any number of other things that may have first turned people on to Tolkien, including the old pen and paper Middle Earth RPG system.Christopher Tolkien has had control over the rights to things like The Silmarillion, and is notoriously limited in what he'll allow people to do in relation to it.
I'd hate to think of what would happen (or more to the point, not happen) if he were able to somehow get back control over The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719367</id>
	<title>Yeah, maybe people like you will wake up</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1247768700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember that these "greedy schmucks" are the ones lobbying and influencing the law. You, I, the Slashdot community, we do not. But we are tax paying constituents. The only time we influence this is when we vote--and let's face it, it's not a voting issue.</p></div><p>Speak for yourself. I call or write my elected representatives all the time about issues. I donate money to nonprofits who have professional lobbyists just like the RIAA does--but working for what I want.</p><p>Want to see the power of citizen lobbying? We're not drilling in ANWR, despite 6 years during which the Republican party controlled the White House and most of Congress. Whether you think that's good or not, it certainly demonstrates that corporate interests are not the only players in Washington.</p><p>If members of Congress received 10 calls every day about copyright issues, they would listen. A call is worth 10 letters because it interrupts what they're doing--they can't put if off or ignore it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that these " greedy schmucks " are the ones lobbying and influencing the law .
You , I , the Slashdot community , we do not .
But we are tax paying constituents .
The only time we influence this is when we vote--and let 's face it , it 's not a voting issue.Speak for yourself .
I call or write my elected representatives all the time about issues .
I donate money to nonprofits who have professional lobbyists just like the RIAA does--but working for what I want.Want to see the power of citizen lobbying ?
We 're not drilling in ANWR , despite 6 years during which the Republican party controlled the White House and most of Congress .
Whether you think that 's good or not , it certainly demonstrates that corporate interests are not the only players in Washington.If members of Congress received 10 calls every day about copyright issues , they would listen .
A call is worth 10 letters because it interrupts what they 're doing--they ca n't put if off or ignore it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that these "greedy schmucks" are the ones lobbying and influencing the law.
You, I, the Slashdot community, we do not.
But we are tax paying constituents.
The only time we influence this is when we vote--and let's face it, it's not a voting issue.Speak for yourself.
I call or write my elected representatives all the time about issues.
I donate money to nonprofits who have professional lobbyists just like the RIAA does--but working for what I want.Want to see the power of citizen lobbying?
We're not drilling in ANWR, despite 6 years during which the Republican party controlled the White House and most of Congress.
Whether you think that's good or not, it certainly demonstrates that corporate interests are not the only players in Washington.If members of Congress received 10 calls every day about copyright issues, they would listen.
A call is worth 10 letters because it interrupts what they're doing--they can't put if off or ignore it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719141</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone own their own ideas anymore?</title>
	<author>sukotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247767920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, his family does not deserve to reap anything more from the franchise.  It was written 70 years ago, it belongs in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , his family does not deserve to reap anything more from the franchise .
It was written 70 years ago , it belongs in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, his family does not deserve to reap anything more from the franchise.
It was written 70 years ago, it belongs in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720809</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1247774040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, everyone's work was copyrighted for a fixed time, whether they lived or died. The question about doing it the modern way is, why should a young author in good health end up with his or her works protected much longer than an older writer, or one with medical problems? That hardly sounds like equal justice to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , everyone 's work was copyrighted for a fixed time , whether they lived or died .
The question about doing it the modern way is , why should a young author in good health end up with his or her works protected much longer than an older writer , or one with medical problems ?
That hardly sounds like equal justice to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, everyone's work was copyrighted for a fixed time, whether they lived or died.
The question about doing it the modern way is, why should a young author in good health end up with his or her works protected much longer than an older writer, or one with medical problems?
That hardly sounds like equal justice to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775</id>
	<title>Thought experiment</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1247763060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to sound wacky, but I really just want to think it through.</p><p>What if we made the kind of fraud that's apparently exercised by music and movie studio accountants, punishable by death?</p><p>How would that play out in society and culture?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to sound wacky , but I really just want to think it through.What if we made the kind of fraud that 's apparently exercised by music and movie studio accountants , punishable by death ? How would that play out in society and culture ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to sound wacky, but I really just want to think it through.What if we made the kind of fraud that's apparently exercised by music and movie studio accountants, punishable by death?How would that play out in society and culture?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717865</id>
	<title>but but the MPAA is for the artists?</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1247763420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The MPAA is fighting to make sure the artists and copyright holders get what they are owed?  Did they forget or is it just a bunch of BS and you should not feel bad about piracy and ignore them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is fighting to make sure the artists and copyright holders get what they are owed ?
Did they forget or is it just a bunch of BS and you should not feel bad about piracy and ignore them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA is fighting to make sure the artists and copyright holders get what they are owed?
Did they forget or is it just a bunch of BS and you should not feel bad about piracy and ignore them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718153</id>
	<title>Ob. Futurama</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247764440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leegola: What else can we slay? Is that a hobbit over there?<br>Titanius Anglesmith: No, that's a hobo and a rabbit. But they're making a hobbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leegola : What else can we slay ?
Is that a hobbit over there ? Titanius Anglesmith : No , that 's a hobo and a rabbit .
But they 're making a hobbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leegola: What else can we slay?
Is that a hobbit over there?Titanius Anglesmith: No, that's a hobo and a rabbit.
But they're making a hobbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721201</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>BatsShadow2</author>
	<datestamp>1247775720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's unfair to say bad things about Christopher Tolkien.  The Histories of Middle Earth are very fine works in and of themselves, not just "milking his dads work."
<br> <br>

Both sides are being lame on this.  It's lame that the Tolkien Estate and especially Christopher is so opposed to (good) movie versions being made, but it also laughably ridiculous that the studio expects anyone to believe they didn't make any money.  In the end, I think the TE should win and Newline should pay up, but if the movie is not released it will be terrible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's unfair to say bad things about Christopher Tolkien .
The Histories of Middle Earth are very fine works in and of themselves , not just " milking his dads work .
" Both sides are being lame on this .
It 's lame that the Tolkien Estate and especially Christopher is so opposed to ( good ) movie versions being made , but it also laughably ridiculous that the studio expects anyone to believe they did n't make any money .
In the end , I think the TE should win and Newline should pay up , but if the movie is not released it will be terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's unfair to say bad things about Christopher Tolkien.
The Histories of Middle Earth are very fine works in and of themselves, not just "milking his dads work.
"
 

Both sides are being lame on this.
It's lame that the Tolkien Estate and especially Christopher is so opposed to (good) movie versions being made, but it also laughably ridiculous that the studio expects anyone to believe they didn't make any money.
In the end, I think the TE should win and Newline should pay up, but if the movie is not released it will be terrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718513</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>nickruiz</author>
	<datestamp>1247765520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps this is a Sackville-Baggins situation in the Tolkien household.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this is a Sackville-Baggins situation in the Tolkien household .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this is a Sackville-Baggins situation in the Tolkien household.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717921</id>
	<title>Dragon magazine...</title>
	<author>i.r.id10t</author>
	<datestamp>1247763600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dragon Magazine had a cartoon bit about this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... apparently they weren't even allowed to use the word "ring" anymore...</p><p>"Hey, someone get the phone - its been circular metal band-ing off the hook!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dragon Magazine had a cartoon bit about this ... apparently they were n't even allowed to use the word " ring " anymore... " Hey , someone get the phone - its been circular metal band-ing off the hook !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dragon Magazine had a cartoon bit about this ... apparently they weren't even allowed to use the word "ring" anymore..."Hey, someone get the phone - its been circular metal band-ing off the hook!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28753843</id>
	<title>Damn leeches</title>
	<author>harie00</author>
	<datestamp>1248081840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wondered if anyone knew what projects are lined up for Allen? I know he and his girlfriend were at the Irish Film awards a few weeks ago. I'd be surprised if ROME doesnt result in a lot of work for him.

harie

<a href="http://www.fastrealestate.net/" title="fastrealestate.net" rel="nofollow">real estate</a> [fastrealestate.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wondered if anyone knew what projects are lined up for Allen ?
I know he and his girlfriend were at the Irish Film awards a few weeks ago .
I 'd be surprised if ROME doesnt result in a lot of work for him .
harie real estate [ fastrealestate.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wondered if anyone knew what projects are lined up for Allen?
I know he and his girlfriend were at the Irish Film awards a few weeks ago.
I'd be surprised if ROME doesnt result in a lot of work for him.
harie

real estate [fastrealestate.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718339</id>
	<title>LotR</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247765040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The" doesn't deserve capitalization any more than "of".  You wouldn't capitalize the in the book title either.  For abbreviations show all articles and prepositions as lower case.  If you have an article or preposition at the beginning of the abbreviation, show it as lower case.  Of Mice and Men would be oMaM.</p><p>By showing articles in lower case you give a clue to the reader that the letter represents something small and structural, rather than a 'real' word.  LoTR would suggest Lord of Token Rings.</p><p>Side note: Not all abbreviations are acronyms.  It's like rectangles and squares.  All squares are rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.  An acronym is a TYPE of abbreviation SPOKEN as a word, rather than spelled.  SCUBA is, CIA is not.  Some twat blithers, "but, but, the dictionary says...".  Dictionaries record how words are USED (correctly or otherwise), not just what they mean.  If acronym means abbreviation, why have two words?  How do we communicate the lost specificity of the word acronym?</p><p>Here's where you call me a pedant/prescriptivist/grammar nazi so you don't have to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The " does n't deserve capitalization any more than " of " .
You would n't capitalize the in the book title either .
For abbreviations show all articles and prepositions as lower case .
If you have an article or preposition at the beginning of the abbreviation , show it as lower case .
Of Mice and Men would be oMaM.By showing articles in lower case you give a clue to the reader that the letter represents something small and structural , rather than a 'real ' word .
LoTR would suggest Lord of Token Rings.Side note : Not all abbreviations are acronyms .
It 's like rectangles and squares .
All squares are rectangle , but not all rectangles are squares .
An acronym is a TYPE of abbreviation SPOKEN as a word , rather than spelled .
SCUBA is , CIA is not .
Some twat blithers , " but , but , the dictionary says... " .
Dictionaries record how words are USED ( correctly or otherwise ) , not just what they mean .
If acronym means abbreviation , why have two words ?
How do we communicate the lost specificity of the word acronym ? Here 's where you call me a pedant/prescriptivist/grammar nazi so you do n't have to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The" doesn't deserve capitalization any more than "of".
You wouldn't capitalize the in the book title either.
For abbreviations show all articles and prepositions as lower case.
If you have an article or preposition at the beginning of the abbreviation, show it as lower case.
Of Mice and Men would be oMaM.By showing articles in lower case you give a clue to the reader that the letter represents something small and structural, rather than a 'real' word.
LoTR would suggest Lord of Token Rings.Side note: Not all abbreviations are acronyms.
It's like rectangles and squares.
All squares are rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.
An acronym is a TYPE of abbreviation SPOKEN as a word, rather than spelled.
SCUBA is, CIA is not.
Some twat blithers, "but, but, the dictionary says...".
Dictionaries record how words are USED (correctly or otherwise), not just what they mean.
If acronym means abbreviation, why have two words?
How do we communicate the lost specificity of the word acronym?Here's where you call me a pedant/prescriptivist/grammar nazi so you don't have to learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718483</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>heritage727</author>
	<datestamp>1247765460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine if the Bard's estate could screw around with people like this.</p><p>That's the direction we are headed.</p></div><p>Especially bad since in this case we need to be able to say "A plague o' both your houses."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if the Bard 's estate could screw around with people like this.That 's the direction we are headed.Especially bad since in this case we need to be able to say " A plague o ' both your houses .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if the Bard's estate could screw around with people like this.That's the direction we are headed.Especially bad since in this case we need to be able to say "A plague o' both your houses.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721859</id>
	<title>I knew this would happen.</title>
	<author>Drone69</author>
	<datestamp>1247735100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time Warner should have stuck to their original plans and produced the Lord of the Dance trilogy instead. I tried to tell them but did they listen? Shame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time Warner should have stuck to their original plans and produced the Lord of the Dance trilogy instead .
I tried to tell them but did they listen ?
Shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time Warner should have stuck to their original plans and produced the Lord of the Dance trilogy instead.
I tried to tell them but did they listen?
Shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719191</id>
	<title>Re:Bad news all around</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1247768100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that may have been a blessing with respect to the most recent one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that may have been a blessing with respect to the most recent one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that may have been a blessing with respect to the most recent one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718749</id>
	<title>Re:Threatening Hobbit Production...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kinda makes all their protestations about piracy ring hollow.  How dare someone else screw them out of a profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda makes all their protestations about piracy ring hollow .
How dare someone else screw them out of a profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda makes all their protestations about piracy ring hollow.
How dare someone else screw them out of a profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719185</id>
	<title>Re:I'd normally side with the family, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Silmarillion? And what do you propose to do with that?</p><p>As for turning people on to Tolkien, everyone I know who reads sci-fi/fantasy read those books back when we were kids, before any of the derivative stuff was out. The books are sufficient and wonderful in themselves. And they had no trouble finding deeply-appreciative readers on their own strength.</p><p>On the other hand, I'm sure the movies are fine. They were done at the right time, when cgi was finally good enough. Still, should I show my son the movies when he's old enough? Or should see that he reads the books first? Doesn't this stuff work better when its your own visions stimulated by the full force of Tolkien's linguistic art, rather than just duping your visions from Hollywood?</p><p>Other than Blade Runner, the Wizard of Oz and the first Star Wars, Hollywood has never shown me a movie equal to the visual potential of the best sci-fi/fantasy books. It might be best to keep them away from our fine literature all together. Let them hire original scriptwriters. Keep the value of literature for literature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Silmarillion ?
And what do you propose to do with that ? As for turning people on to Tolkien , everyone I know who reads sci-fi/fantasy read those books back when we were kids , before any of the derivative stuff was out .
The books are sufficient and wonderful in themselves .
And they had no trouble finding deeply-appreciative readers on their own strength.On the other hand , I 'm sure the movies are fine .
They were done at the right time , when cgi was finally good enough .
Still , should I show my son the movies when he 's old enough ?
Or should see that he reads the books first ?
Does n't this stuff work better when its your own visions stimulated by the full force of Tolkien 's linguistic art , rather than just duping your visions from Hollywood ? Other than Blade Runner , the Wizard of Oz and the first Star Wars , Hollywood has never shown me a movie equal to the visual potential of the best sci-fi/fantasy books .
It might be best to keep them away from our fine literature all together .
Let them hire original scriptwriters .
Keep the value of literature for literature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Silmarillion?
And what do you propose to do with that?As for turning people on to Tolkien, everyone I know who reads sci-fi/fantasy read those books back when we were kids, before any of the derivative stuff was out.
The books are sufficient and wonderful in themselves.
And they had no trouble finding deeply-appreciative readers on their own strength.On the other hand, I'm sure the movies are fine.
They were done at the right time, when cgi was finally good enough.
Still, should I show my son the movies when he's old enough?
Or should see that he reads the books first?
Doesn't this stuff work better when its your own visions stimulated by the full force of Tolkien's linguistic art, rather than just duping your visions from Hollywood?Other than Blade Runner, the Wizard of Oz and the first Star Wars, Hollywood has never shown me a movie equal to the visual potential of the best sci-fi/fantasy books.
It might be best to keep them away from our fine literature all together.
Let them hire original scriptwriters.
Keep the value of literature for literature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717895</id>
	<title>Re:Thought experiment</title>
	<author>Araneas</author>
	<datestamp>1247763540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like preaching to the choir brother!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like preaching to the choir brother !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like preaching to the choir brother!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773</id>
	<title>Bad news all around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.</p><p>OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here. These are works<br>that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons. The<br>worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any of<br>the greedy schmucks. The fact that a charity is involved is just a nice<br>red herring to confuse things.</p><p>Imagine if the Bard's estate could screw around with people like this.</p><p>That's the direction we are headed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...on the one hand , the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.OTOH , the next of kin should not be in the picture here .
These are worksthat should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons .
Theworthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any ofthe greedy schmucks .
The fact that a charity is involved is just a nicered herring to confuse things.Imagine if the Bard 's estate could screw around with people like this.That 's the direction we are headed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here.
These are worksthat should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons.
Theworthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any ofthe greedy schmucks.
The fact that a charity is involved is just a nicered herring to confuse things.Imagine if the Bard's estate could screw around with people like this.That's the direction we are headed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718683</id>
	<title>Re:Then explain this</title>
	<author>jnaujok</author>
	<datestamp>1247766120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The contract was signed by J.R.R. Tolkien in 1969. Copyright doesn't even enter into the argument. New Line, Time Warner, and MGM are all bound by the original contract, signed by J.R.R. Tolkien. As the Inheritor of his estate, Chris Tokien has the right, along with the Tolkien Trust, to enforce the terms of the contract through civil action.</p><p>I hate to make this sound angry, but it has nothing to do with Chris Tolkien, other than he's the one who inherited the money. J.R.R. Tolkien sold a product for a specific fee, partly up front, and partly to be paid later. The studio is now using fraudulent accounting techniques to avoid paying the "later" part. If J.R.R. Tolkien were still alive, he would be the one suing. Hes not, but the contract is still binding, so his estate is suing.</p><p>Copyright doesn't even show up in this equation. Nor does whether his heirs added anything to the mythos (which he has through his clean up and publishing of all the remaining Tolkien works and notes.)</p><p>This is just simple, every day, contract law.</p><p>Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is my opinions, based on reading TFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The contract was signed by J.R.R .
Tolkien in 1969 .
Copyright does n't even enter into the argument .
New Line , Time Warner , and MGM are all bound by the original contract , signed by J.R.R .
Tolkien. As the Inheritor of his estate , Chris Tokien has the right , along with the Tolkien Trust , to enforce the terms of the contract through civil action.I hate to make this sound angry , but it has nothing to do with Chris Tolkien , other than he 's the one who inherited the money .
J.R.R. Tolkien sold a product for a specific fee , partly up front , and partly to be paid later .
The studio is now using fraudulent accounting techniques to avoid paying the " later " part .
If J.R.R .
Tolkien were still alive , he would be the one suing .
Hes not , but the contract is still binding , so his estate is suing.Copyright does n't even show up in this equation .
Nor does whether his heirs added anything to the mythos ( which he has through his clean up and publishing of all the remaining Tolkien works and notes .
) This is just simple , every day , contract law.Disclaimer : IANAL , and this is my opinions , based on reading TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The contract was signed by J.R.R.
Tolkien in 1969.
Copyright doesn't even enter into the argument.
New Line, Time Warner, and MGM are all bound by the original contract, signed by J.R.R.
Tolkien. As the Inheritor of his estate, Chris Tokien has the right, along with the Tolkien Trust, to enforce the terms of the contract through civil action.I hate to make this sound angry, but it has nothing to do with Chris Tolkien, other than he's the one who inherited the money.
J.R.R. Tolkien sold a product for a specific fee, partly up front, and partly to be paid later.
The studio is now using fraudulent accounting techniques to avoid paying the "later" part.
If J.R.R.
Tolkien were still alive, he would be the one suing.
Hes not, but the contract is still binding, so his estate is suing.Copyright doesn't even show up in this equation.
Nor does whether his heirs added anything to the mythos (which he has through his clean up and publishing of all the remaining Tolkien works and notes.
)This is just simple, every day, contract law.Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is my opinions, based on reading TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967</id>
	<title>Then explain this</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1247763720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How in the fuck did these guys in any way contribute to the LOTR films, or even the whole mythos itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How in the fuck did these guys in any way contribute to the LOTR films , or even the whole mythos itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How in the fuck did these guys in any way contribute to the LOTR films, or even the whole mythos itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723103</id>
	<title>Re:this is common in hollywood</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is actual special accounting software for handling "Hollywood accounting." At least according to Art Buchwald in one of his books. He was screwed by the studios over the Eddie Murphy hit "Coming to America" and wrote a book about the ensuing lawsuit, "Fatal Subtraction."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is actual special accounting software for handling " Hollywood accounting .
" At least according to Art Buchwald in one of his books .
He was screwed by the studios over the Eddie Murphy hit " Coming to America " and wrote a book about the ensuing lawsuit , " Fatal Subtraction .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is actual special accounting software for handling "Hollywood accounting.
" At least according to Art Buchwald in one of his books.
He was screwed by the studios over the Eddie Murphy hit "Coming to America" and wrote a book about the ensuing lawsuit, "Fatal Subtraction.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721787</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone own their own ideas anymore?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1247734800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, all that crap in the constitution about 'for a limited time' is Marxist drivel. Now write your congressman and demand they get all that commie stuff out of the constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , all that crap in the constitution about 'for a limited time ' is Marxist drivel .
Now write your congressman and demand they get all that commie stuff out of the constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, all that crap in the constitution about 'for a limited time' is Marxist drivel.
Now write your congressman and demand they get all that commie stuff out of the constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718315</id>
	<title>Re:but but the MPAA is for the artists?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247764980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The MPAA is fighting to make sure the artists and copyright holders get what they are owed?</i></p><p>He's dead, Jim.</p><blockquote><div><p>To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for <b>limited times</b> to <b>authors and inventors</b> the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't see anywhere in there where the US constitution allows anyone but an author or inventor to be granted patent or copyright. How exactly does that twisted logic work, anyway? Is New Line Cinema British or something?</p><p>Even Tolkien himself asked only for protection for <b>living</b> authors. Our constitution has become completely meaningless. As all our law is based on it, then the rule of law is dead in the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is fighting to make sure the artists and copyright holders get what they are owed ? He 's dead , Jim.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 do n't see anywhere in there where the US constitution allows anyone but an author or inventor to be granted patent or copyright .
How exactly does that twisted logic work , anyway ?
Is New Line Cinema British or something ? Even Tolkien himself asked only for protection for living authors .
Our constitution has become completely meaningless .
As all our law is based on it , then the rule of law is dead in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA is fighting to make sure the artists and copyright holders get what they are owed?He's dead, Jim.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 don't see anywhere in there where the US constitution allows anyone but an author or inventor to be granted patent or copyright.
How exactly does that twisted logic work, anyway?
Is New Line Cinema British or something?Even Tolkien himself asked only for protection for living authors.
Our constitution has become completely meaningless.
As all our law is based on it, then the rule of law is dead in the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717957</id>
	<title>Re:Thought experiment</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1247763660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't have to make it "punishable by death," just flipping make it ILLEGAL!  I'm so tired of hearing about a-hole musician managers like Klein ripping off artists and swindling them out of song rights, talent agents taking their pounds of flesh from artists and athletes, and trusted personal financial advisors diverting funds from their clients to their own coffers.  Just make it clearly ILLEGAL.  Draw strong outlines around what compensation these people are allowed to make while in the service of their clients.  Create template contracts that uninitiated people can use to protect themselves.  As it stands, you need a lawyer and an accountant to make sure your lawyer and accountant aren't fucking you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to make it " punishable by death , " just flipping make it ILLEGAL !
I 'm so tired of hearing about a-hole musician managers like Klein ripping off artists and swindling them out of song rights , talent agents taking their pounds of flesh from artists and athletes , and trusted personal financial advisors diverting funds from their clients to their own coffers .
Just make it clearly ILLEGAL .
Draw strong outlines around what compensation these people are allowed to make while in the service of their clients .
Create template contracts that uninitiated people can use to protect themselves .
As it stands , you need a lawyer and an accountant to make sure your lawyer and accountant are n't fucking you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to make it "punishable by death," just flipping make it ILLEGAL!
I'm so tired of hearing about a-hole musician managers like Klein ripping off artists and swindling them out of song rights, talent agents taking their pounds of flesh from artists and athletes, and trusted personal financial advisors diverting funds from their clients to their own coffers.
Just make it clearly ILLEGAL.
Draw strong outlines around what compensation these people are allowed to make while in the service of their clients.
Create template contracts that uninitiated people can use to protect themselves.
As it stands, you need a lawyer and an accountant to make sure your lawyer and accountant aren't fucking you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>e9th</author>
	<datestamp>1247764860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tolkien lived until 1973. Should it have gone PD in his lifetime?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tolkien lived until 1973 .
Should it have gone PD in his lifetime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tolkien lived until 1973.
Should it have gone PD in his lifetime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723307</id>
	<title>Re:this is common in hollywood</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247741340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As public companies, isn't it their duty to maximize profits? If none of their movies are making them any money (which is obviously simply cannot be true, except for a very narrow, misleading interpretation), then why aren't their shareholders pissed off? Do they have two accountants, one that talks to rights-holders and one that talks to shareholders, each with different interpretations?</p><p>Accounting in the record and movie biz is just so blatantly gamed that I can't figure out why it's allowed. Too big to fail or something? (hah)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As public companies , is n't it their duty to maximize profits ?
If none of their movies are making them any money ( which is obviously simply can not be true , except for a very narrow , misleading interpretation ) , then why are n't their shareholders pissed off ?
Do they have two accountants , one that talks to rights-holders and one that talks to shareholders , each with different interpretations ? Accounting in the record and movie biz is just so blatantly gamed that I ca n't figure out why it 's allowed .
Too big to fail or something ?
( hah )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As public companies, isn't it their duty to maximize profits?
If none of their movies are making them any money (which is obviously simply cannot be true, except for a very narrow, misleading interpretation), then why aren't their shareholders pissed off?
Do they have two accountants, one that talks to rights-holders and one that talks to shareholders, each with different interpretations?Accounting in the record and movie biz is just so blatantly gamed that I can't figure out why it's allowed.
Too big to fail or something?
(hah)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718931</id>
	<title>Re:Damn leeches</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1247767080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends, I would favor copyrights that would allow for books that are still in-print to still have copyright otherwise it expires in ~10 years with registration with the possibility of renewal only if it is in print. And really, with trademarks and such if it had gone public domain, he could effectively control all "official" printings of his book (for example, he couldn't stop someone from making a movie, but it couldn't say or hint that it was authorized), doing this would allow for the control but would lack the "getting paid for doing nothing" that exists today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends , I would favor copyrights that would allow for books that are still in-print to still have copyright otherwise it expires in ~ 10 years with registration with the possibility of renewal only if it is in print .
And really , with trademarks and such if it had gone public domain , he could effectively control all " official " printings of his book ( for example , he could n't stop someone from making a movie , but it could n't say or hint that it was authorized ) , doing this would allow for the control but would lack the " getting paid for doing nothing " that exists today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends, I would favor copyrights that would allow for books that are still in-print to still have copyright otherwise it expires in ~10 years with registration with the possibility of renewal only if it is in print.
And really, with trademarks and such if it had gone public domain, he could effectively control all "official" printings of his book (for example, he couldn't stop someone from making a movie, but it couldn't say or hint that it was authorized), doing this would allow for the control but would lack the "getting paid for doing nothing" that exists today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718337</id>
	<title>Re:Thought experiment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, but it'd make a great movie!  I'll share profits with you for the rights to the story!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , but it 'd make a great movie !
I 'll share profits with you for the rights to the story !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, but it'd make a great movie!
I'll share profits with you for the rights to the story!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720513</id>
	<title>Re:I'd normally side with the family, but...</title>
	<author>S7urm</author>
	<datestamp>1247772900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with what you're saying to an extent, I think you are failing to figure in not only the fact that some people's imagination is so limited that they are truly impressed by a theatrical version of a book they've read, and also I think your average person enjoys watching a movie based on a book just to see if they shared an image of a charachter or scene with others, and also to see the awesome parts of the stories visualized for them (Like when the Fellowship is floating down the river to Rohan, I thought a lot of those scenes were very visually appealing) I am glad I saw the movies, though I do agree that they don't compare to the books</p><p>Have your child read them first, then after a time, allow them to see the movies. IMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with what you 're saying to an extent , I think you are failing to figure in not only the fact that some people 's imagination is so limited that they are truly impressed by a theatrical version of a book they 've read , and also I think your average person enjoys watching a movie based on a book just to see if they shared an image of a charachter or scene with others , and also to see the awesome parts of the stories visualized for them ( Like when the Fellowship is floating down the river to Rohan , I thought a lot of those scenes were very visually appealing ) I am glad I saw the movies , though I do agree that they do n't compare to the booksHave your child read them first , then after a time , allow them to see the movies .
IMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with what you're saying to an extent, I think you are failing to figure in not only the fact that some people's imagination is so limited that they are truly impressed by a theatrical version of a book they've read, and also I think your average person enjoys watching a movie based on a book just to see if they shared an image of a charachter or scene with others, and also to see the awesome parts of the stories visualized for them (Like when the Fellowship is floating down the river to Rohan, I thought a lot of those scenes were very visually appealing) I am glad I saw the movies, though I do agree that they don't compare to the booksHave your child read them first, then after a time, allow them to see the movies.
IMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28727603</id>
	<title>Re:Then explain this</title>
	<author>Godwin O'Hitler</author>
	<datestamp>1247831340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Playing the devil's advocate here: aren't those two works you cite, The Hobbit and LOTR, exactly what we're talking about?<br>They haven't made a film of the Silmarillion yet to my knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Playing the devil 's advocate here : are n't those two works you cite , The Hobbit and LOTR , exactly what we 're talking about ? They have n't made a film of the Silmarillion yet to my knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playing the devil's advocate here: aren't those two works you cite, The Hobbit and LOTR, exactly what we're talking about?They haven't made a film of the Silmarillion yet to my knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718351</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28726773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28727603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28732717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28726019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28727223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28727771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28746513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1430249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28726845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28726773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28746513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718867
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717921
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721691
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718287
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28727223
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718931
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720809
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718577
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28726845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28726019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28732717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28720705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718949
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719301
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718635
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28719383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28723559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1430249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28717967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28722493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28727603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28718683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28721923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1430249.28727771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
