<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_17_2138213</id>
	<title>Amazon Pulls Purchased E-Book Copies of <em>1984</em>  and <em>Animal Farm</em></title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247827140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://psoug.org/reference/" rel="nofollow">Oracle Goddess</a> writes <i>"In a story just dripping with irony, Amazon Kindle owners awoke this morning to discover that <a href="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/"> <em>1984</em> and <em>Animal Farm</em> had mysteriously disappeared from their e-book readers</a>. These were books that they had bought and paid for, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm\_cd\_pg\_newest?\_encoding=UTF8&amp;cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&amp;cdPage=1&amp;cdSort=oldest&amp;cdThread=Tx1QUP1NLUY4Q5M&amp;displayType=tagsDetail">thought they owned</a>. Apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by George Orwell from people's Kindles and credited their accounts for the price. Amazon customer service may or may not have responded to queries by stating, '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen\_Eighty-Four#The\_War">We've always been at war with Eastasia.</a>'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle Goddess writes " In a story just dripping with irony , Amazon Kindle owners awoke this morning to discover that 1984 and Animal Farm had mysteriously disappeared from their e-book readers .
These were books that they had bought and paid for , and thought they owned .
Apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition , and apparently Amazon , whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness , caved .
It electronically deleted all books by George Orwell from people 's Kindles and credited their accounts for the price .
Amazon customer service may or may not have responded to queries by stating , 'We 've always been at war with Eastasia .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle Goddess writes "In a story just dripping with irony, Amazon Kindle owners awoke this morning to discover that  1984 and Animal Farm had mysteriously disappeared from their e-book readers.
These were books that they had bought and paid for, and thought they owned.
Apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved.
It electronically deleted all books by George Orwell from people's Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.
Amazon customer service may or may not have responded to queries by stating, 'We've always been at war with Eastasia.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28759209</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>JOrgePeixoto</author>
	<datestamp>1248116940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are taking the right to copy an original work from the artist who created it. You are depriving him or her of the right bestowed to him by law, just as freedom of speech is bestowed unto him or her by law.</p></div><p>What? So there is no morality outside of law? You seem to implicate that if freedom of speech wasn't codified in law it wouldn't be a right.</p><p>Private property is a right. Physical items can *belong* to a person. A government that doesn't respect people's right of property is an unacceptable government. A government must not violate this right even if it thinks that it would benefit society as a whole. Some people accept exception in rare situations such as eminent domain (as long as the government compensates the owner *and* there is a pressing need for the act), some do not accept these exceptions.<br>Private property is a right, not something that is enforced by law just because it is useful. If the law does not recognize the right to private property the law is wrong. It is similar to the right to live. No one can kill a person, even if doing so is a net benefit to society (like killing a person with a serious contagious disease). There are strict exceptions such as self defense (widely recognized) and capital punishment (more polemic).</p><p>But ideas do not belong to anyone. No one has a *right* to "own" an idea. What the lobbyists call "intellectual property" is an artificial restriction created by the government on the dissemination of ideas. Far from being a right, it violates people's right to disseminate ideas. It may be acceptable if<br>1) It creates an overall society benefit.<br>2) It doesn't overly limit the citizens' freedom.</p><p>The lobbyist idea of "intellectual property", that is "stolen" when someones copies an electronic file, leads to effectively unlimited copyright terms, the patentability of mathematical ideas, bigger and bigger penalties for copyright infringers, lower and lower standars of proof...</p><p>Trademarks, copyrights and specially patents, when correctly implemented and limited, can be a necessary evil. The way they are currently implemented, they are just evil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are taking the right to copy an original work from the artist who created it .
You are depriving him or her of the right bestowed to him by law , just as freedom of speech is bestowed unto him or her by law.What ?
So there is no morality outside of law ?
You seem to implicate that if freedom of speech was n't codified in law it would n't be a right.Private property is a right .
Physical items can * belong * to a person .
A government that does n't respect people 's right of property is an unacceptable government .
A government must not violate this right even if it thinks that it would benefit society as a whole .
Some people accept exception in rare situations such as eminent domain ( as long as the government compensates the owner * and * there is a pressing need for the act ) , some do not accept these exceptions.Private property is a right , not something that is enforced by law just because it is useful .
If the law does not recognize the right to private property the law is wrong .
It is similar to the right to live .
No one can kill a person , even if doing so is a net benefit to society ( like killing a person with a serious contagious disease ) .
There are strict exceptions such as self defense ( widely recognized ) and capital punishment ( more polemic ) .But ideas do not belong to anyone .
No one has a * right * to " own " an idea .
What the lobbyists call " intellectual property " is an artificial restriction created by the government on the dissemination of ideas .
Far from being a right , it violates people 's right to disseminate ideas .
It may be acceptable if1 ) It creates an overall society benefit.2 ) It does n't overly limit the citizens ' freedom.The lobbyist idea of " intellectual property " , that is " stolen " when someones copies an electronic file , leads to effectively unlimited copyright terms , the patentability of mathematical ideas , bigger and bigger penalties for copyright infringers , lower and lower standars of proof...Trademarks , copyrights and specially patents , when correctly implemented and limited , can be a necessary evil .
The way they are currently implemented , they are just evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are taking the right to copy an original work from the artist who created it.
You are depriving him or her of the right bestowed to him by law, just as freedom of speech is bestowed unto him or her by law.What?
So there is no morality outside of law?
You seem to implicate that if freedom of speech wasn't codified in law it wouldn't be a right.Private property is a right.
Physical items can *belong* to a person.
A government that doesn't respect people's right of property is an unacceptable government.
A government must not violate this right even if it thinks that it would benefit society as a whole.
Some people accept exception in rare situations such as eminent domain (as long as the government compensates the owner *and* there is a pressing need for the act), some do not accept these exceptions.Private property is a right, not something that is enforced by law just because it is useful.
If the law does not recognize the right to private property the law is wrong.
It is similar to the right to live.
No one can kill a person, even if doing so is a net benefit to society (like killing a person with a serious contagious disease).
There are strict exceptions such as self defense (widely recognized) and capital punishment (more polemic).But ideas do not belong to anyone.
No one has a *right* to "own" an idea.
What the lobbyists call "intellectual property" is an artificial restriction created by the government on the dissemination of ideas.
Far from being a right, it violates people's right to disseminate ideas.
It may be acceptable if1) It creates an overall society benefit.2) It doesn't overly limit the citizens' freedom.The lobbyist idea of "intellectual property", that is "stolen" when someones copies an electronic file, leads to effectively unlimited copyright terms, the patentability of mathematical ideas, bigger and bigger penalties for copyright infringers, lower and lower standars of proof...Trademarks, copyrights and specially patents, when correctly implemented and limited, can be a necessary evil.
The way they are currently implemented, they are just evil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736709</id>
	<title>It seems like only 2 months ago</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1247835840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>when we discussed this, and so many people said that Amazon would never be crazy enough to try and pull a stunt like this...<br> <br>

Of course,<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1233101&amp;cid=27951667" title="slashdot.org">others among us</a> [slashdot.org] were a bit more cynical about what Amazon would or wouldn't do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>when we discussed this , and so many people said that Amazon would never be crazy enough to try and pull a stunt like this.. . Of course,others among us [ slashdot.org ] were a bit more cynical about what Amazon would or would n't do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when we discussed this, and so many people said that Amazon would never be crazy enough to try and pull a stunt like this... 

Of course,others among us [slashdot.org] were a bit more cynical about what Amazon would or wouldn't do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740781</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247932260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's already happened.  Earlier this year, Kindles all over the country automatically downloaded revised copies of King's The Stand for customers who had purchased it.  No authorization or input from the owner, no ability to refuse, and no word on what was revised.</p><p>Probably just some spelling changes, but no easy way to be sure, and surely a bad precedent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already happened .
Earlier this year , Kindles all over the country automatically downloaded revised copies of King 's The Stand for customers who had purchased it .
No authorization or input from the owner , no ability to refuse , and no word on what was revised.Probably just some spelling changes , but no easy way to be sure , and surely a bad precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already happened.
Earlier this year, Kindles all over the country automatically downloaded revised copies of King's The Stand for customers who had purchased it.
No authorization or input from the owner, no ability to refuse, and no word on what was revised.Probably just some spelling changes, but no easy way to be sure, and surely a bad precedent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736571</id>
	<title>Re:The author has been dead for 60 years!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247834940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, I think a fixed length from creation or publication would be fair enough.  You do \_NOT\_ want a situation where the way someone can get immediate legal access to a work is for that artist to have an "accident".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Anything else is ridiculous.</p></div><p>Actually, your proposal is ridiculous, it's needlessly complicated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no , I think a fixed length from creation or publication would be fair enough .
You do \ _NOT \ _ want a situation where the way someone can get immediate legal access to a work is for that artist to have an " accident " .Anything else is ridiculous.Actually , your proposal is ridiculous , it 's needlessly complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, I think a fixed length from creation or publication would be fair enough.
You do \_NOT\_ want a situation where the way someone can get immediate legal access to a work is for that artist to have an "accident".Anything else is ridiculous.Actually, your proposal is ridiculous, it's needlessly complicated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736595</id>
	<title>Simple solution: new Kindle "accessory"</title>
	<author>lumenistan</author>
	<datestamp>1247835120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi,  Billy Mays here!  <br>
Are you tired of content being taken from or added to your Kindle arbitrarily?<br>
Are you sick to your stomach at the thought of losing control?<br>
Are you afraid to come to terms with not owning stuff you bought?<br>
<br>
Well do I have a product <b>for you</b>!
<p>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tesla1000/148653427" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">Announcing the ReadingRoom 5000!</a> [flickr.com]
</p><p>
Now you can store and enjoy your Kindle without fear of having it messed with by THE MAN!  And, as a bonus, you'll also be safe from rabid telemarketers, alien abduction, and bolts of lightning.  But we're not done yet!  If you act now, we'll throw in another one at no additional cost! (just pay shipping and handling - it's reasonable, I promise)
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or is that too soon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , Billy Mays here !
Are you tired of content being taken from or added to your Kindle arbitrarily ?
Are you sick to your stomach at the thought of losing control ?
Are you afraid to come to terms with not owning stuff you bought ?
Well do I have a product for you !
Announcing the ReadingRoom 5000 !
[ flickr.com ] Now you can store and enjoy your Kindle without fear of having it messed with by THE MAN !
And , as a bonus , you 'll also be safe from rabid telemarketers , alien abduction , and bolts of lightning .
But we 're not done yet !
If you act now , we 'll throw in another one at no additional cost !
( just pay shipping and handling - it 's reasonable , I promise ) ...or is that too soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,  Billy Mays here!
Are you tired of content being taken from or added to your Kindle arbitrarily?
Are you sick to your stomach at the thought of losing control?
Are you afraid to come to terms with not owning stuff you bought?
Well do I have a product for you!
Announcing the ReadingRoom 5000!
[flickr.com]

Now you can store and enjoy your Kindle without fear of having it messed with by THE MAN!
And, as a bonus, you'll also be safe from rabid telemarketers, alien abduction, and bolts of lightning.
But we're not done yet!
If you act now, we'll throw in another one at no additional cost!
(just pay shipping and handling - it's reasonable, I promise)
 ...or is that too soon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736267</id>
	<title>Public domain in Australia</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1247833140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australians are probably wondering why anyone would buy an e-book that's already in the public domain.  These books probably would be here in the US too but for all the copyright extensions we've had purchased over the years by certain organizations like Disney.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australians are probably wondering why anyone would buy an e-book that 's already in the public domain .
These books probably would be here in the US too but for all the copyright extensions we 've had purchased over the years by certain organizations like Disney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australians are probably wondering why anyone would buy an e-book that's already in the public domain.
These books probably would be here in the US too but for all the copyright extensions we've had purchased over the years by certain organizations like Disney.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737679</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247844120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>You forgot scare quotes around property.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kindle customers have , in effect , been sold " stolen " property .
You forgot scare quotes around property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property.
You forgot scare quotes around property.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736263</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247833080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but I think(from what I have seen discussed before) that if you were to do some formatting issues (ie fix spellings, rearrange bits and pieces, add chapter marks, index, glossary, etc) you could claim copyright on that new edition(or at least the parts added to it), but not on the original work.</p><p>So you would end up with 2 versions, one that someone has a copyright on(because they added stuff to it, and really I think only has copyright on the new stuff but it might be in such a way as to make it inseparable), and one that is in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but I think ( from what I have seen discussed before ) that if you were to do some formatting issues ( ie fix spellings , rearrange bits and pieces , add chapter marks , index , glossary , etc ) you could claim copyright on that new edition ( or at least the parts added to it ) , but not on the original work.So you would end up with 2 versions , one that someone has a copyright on ( because they added stuff to it , and really I think only has copyright on the new stuff but it might be in such a way as to make it inseparable ) , and one that is in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but I think(from what I have seen discussed before) that if you were to do some formatting issues (ie fix spellings, rearrange bits and pieces, add chapter marks, index, glossary, etc) you could claim copyright on that new edition(or at least the parts added to it), but not on the original work.So you would end up with 2 versions, one that someone has a copyright on(because they added stuff to it, and really I think only has copyright on the new stuff but it might be in such a way as to make it inseparable), and one that is in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736611</id>
	<title>Re:Not irony in the literay sense...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247835240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous [fashion]</p><p>That sounds like it fits this to me:<br>event -- Amazon deletes customers' copies of 1984<br>1984 -- one plot device is the rewriting of history by censoring (deleting) news of events so that they appear to have never happened to the larger world. This is understood by the reader to be a bad thing.<br>coincidence -- Amazon has deleted "history" of the purchase of a book which deals in a contraindicative fashion with the deleting of history.</p><p>Oddly, that first definition -- A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally -- sounds to me more like sarcasm than irony.</p><p>But in any case, I don't have a problem distinguishing the irony in Amazon's choice of books to delete (not that they themselves chose, strictly speaking, but the situation is still the same). Much different than the list of unfortunate events given by Alanis Morissette, with hardly a bit of irony.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous [ fashion ] That sounds like it fits this to me : event -- Amazon deletes customers ' copies of 19841984 -- one plot device is the rewriting of history by censoring ( deleting ) news of events so that they appear to have never happened to the larger world .
This is understood by the reader to be a bad thing.coincidence -- Amazon has deleted " history " of the purchase of a book which deals in a contraindicative fashion with the deleting of history.Oddly , that first definition -- A statement that , when taken in context , may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally -- sounds to me more like sarcasm than irony.But in any case , I do n't have a problem distinguishing the irony in Amazon 's choice of books to delete ( not that they themselves chose , strictly speaking , but the situation is still the same ) .
Much different than the list of unfortunate events given by Alanis Morissette , with hardly a bit of irony .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous [fashion]That sounds like it fits this to me:event -- Amazon deletes customers' copies of 19841984 -- one plot device is the rewriting of history by censoring (deleting) news of events so that they appear to have never happened to the larger world.
This is understood by the reader to be a bad thing.coincidence -- Amazon has deleted "history" of the purchase of a book which deals in a contraindicative fashion with the deleting of history.Oddly, that first definition -- A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally -- sounds to me more like sarcasm than irony.But in any case, I don't have a problem distinguishing the irony in Amazon's choice of books to delete (not that they themselves chose, strictly speaking, but the situation is still the same).
Much different than the list of unfortunate events given by Alanis Morissette, with hardly a bit of irony.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736013</id>
	<title>Think of the possibilities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247831460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of the censorship possibilities this presents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of the censorship possibilities this presents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of the censorship possibilities this presents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28745935</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>RaymondKurzweil</author>
	<datestamp>1247943720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why We Suck at Predicting the Future [wired.com].</p><p>Just because "We" do, doesn't mean I don't.</p><p>I predicted that by 2009, there would be many portable electronic devices. I have of course been proven right.</p><p>I predicted that by 2009, we will have sent a man to the moon. That turned out to be true, in fact it was accomplished 40 years prior!</p><p>I predicted that by 2009, you would be able to purchase a nutritional shake that doesn't taste like <a href="http://www.rayandterry.com/get\_samples\_form.asp" title="rayandterry.com" rel="nofollow">shit</a> [rayandterry.com].</p><p>Due to the Law of Accelerating Returns some of these predictions actually occur SO FAST, that they are realized BEFORE I PREDICT THEM. But I'm still fucking amazing.</p><p>You're just some punk ass bitch. You're all punk ass bitches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why We Suck at Predicting the Future [ wired.com ] .Just because " We " do , does n't mean I do n't.I predicted that by 2009 , there would be many portable electronic devices .
I have of course been proven right.I predicted that by 2009 , we will have sent a man to the moon .
That turned out to be true , in fact it was accomplished 40 years prior ! I predicted that by 2009 , you would be able to purchase a nutritional shake that does n't taste like shit [ rayandterry.com ] .Due to the Law of Accelerating Returns some of these predictions actually occur SO FAST , that they are realized BEFORE I PREDICT THEM .
But I 'm still fucking amazing.You 're just some punk ass bitch .
You 're all punk ass bitches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why We Suck at Predicting the Future [wired.com].Just because "We" do, doesn't mean I don't.I predicted that by 2009, there would be many portable electronic devices.
I have of course been proven right.I predicted that by 2009, we will have sent a man to the moon.
That turned out to be true, in fact it was accomplished 40 years prior!I predicted that by 2009, you would be able to purchase a nutritional shake that doesn't taste like shit [rayandterry.com].Due to the Law of Accelerating Returns some of these predictions actually occur SO FAST, that they are realized BEFORE I PREDICT THEM.
But I'm still fucking amazing.You're just some punk ass bitch.
You're all punk ass bitches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738495</id>
	<title>Re:Stick with dead tree editions..</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247855760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or download the plain text version from Project Gutenberg, and read it on your Kindle (or anything else, really)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or download the plain text version from Project Gutenberg , and read it on your Kindle ( or anything else , really ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or download the plain text version from Project Gutenberg, and read it on your Kindle (or anything else, really)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741307</id>
	<title>Yeah, until they change their mind</title>
	<author>PotatoHead</author>
	<datestamp>1247936640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the core of the issue is that they have the control over YOUR stuff.  Kindle users are just on a rental program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the core of the issue is that they have the control over YOUR stuff .
Kindle users are just on a rental program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the core of the issue is that they have the control over YOUR stuff.
Kindle users are just on a rental program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736023</id>
	<title>Stick with dead tree editions..</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1247831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For stuff you really want to have access to permanently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For stuff you really want to have access to permanently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For stuff you really want to have access to permanently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738201</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>shmlco</author>
	<datestamp>1247850840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's another troubling aspect to this that's yet to be discussed, and one that's especially double-plus-ironic considering that one of the deleted books was Orwell's 1984.</p><p>If they can download a book, and if they can delete a book, then they certainly have the capability to REPLACE a book. Imagine that some night thousands of Kindle ebooks disappear and then reappear... altered.</p><p>We are at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's another troubling aspect to this that 's yet to be discussed , and one that 's especially double-plus-ironic considering that one of the deleted books was Orwell 's 1984.If they can download a book , and if they can delete a book , then they certainly have the capability to REPLACE a book .
Imagine that some night thousands of Kindle ebooks disappear and then reappear... altered.We are at war with Eurasia .
We 've always been at war with Eurasia.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's another troubling aspect to this that's yet to be discussed, and one that's especially double-plus-ironic considering that one of the deleted books was Orwell's 1984.If they can download a book, and if they can delete a book, then they certainly have the capability to REPLACE a book.
Imagine that some night thousands of Kindle ebooks disappear and then reappear... altered.We are at war with Eurasia.
We've always been at war with Eurasia...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736783</id>
	<title>Re:The author has been dead for 60 years!</title>
	<author>maxfresh</author>
	<datestamp>1247836440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be going way too far the other way, for a couple of reasons.<br> <br>

First, it would deprive the author's heirs of their rightful claim to the income generated from the late author's work. As a society, we don't say that a person's physical property becomes "public property" as soon as they die, so why should their financial interest in intangible property end when they die? I think that the rights of the author need to be respected, and balanced against the rights of the public.<br> <br>

Second, it would give unscrupulous parties the incentive to kill a person who holds a copyright in a commercially valuable work, so that they could get their hands on his or her work, and profit from it for free.<br> <br>

One possible solution to balance the various interests could be to grant individual members of the public an automatic royalty free license to make copies of a deceased author's works for personal, non-commercial use, within a short period after the author's death, maybe 15 years, while maintaining the full death+75 year copyright for commercial use, copying, or making derivative works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be going way too far the other way , for a couple of reasons .
First , it would deprive the author 's heirs of their rightful claim to the income generated from the late author 's work .
As a society , we do n't say that a person 's physical property becomes " public property " as soon as they die , so why should their financial interest in intangible property end when they die ?
I think that the rights of the author need to be respected , and balanced against the rights of the public .
Second , it would give unscrupulous parties the incentive to kill a person who holds a copyright in a commercially valuable work , so that they could get their hands on his or her work , and profit from it for free .
One possible solution to balance the various interests could be to grant individual members of the public an automatic royalty free license to make copies of a deceased author 's works for personal , non-commercial use , within a short period after the author 's death , maybe 15 years , while maintaining the full death + 75 year copyright for commercial use , copying , or making derivative works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be going way too far the other way, for a couple of reasons.
First, it would deprive the author's heirs of their rightful claim to the income generated from the late author's work.
As a society, we don't say that a person's physical property becomes "public property" as soon as they die, so why should their financial interest in intangible property end when they die?
I think that the rights of the author need to be respected, and balanced against the rights of the public.
Second, it would give unscrupulous parties the incentive to kill a person who holds a copyright in a commercially valuable work, so that they could get their hands on his or her work, and profit from it for free.
One possible solution to balance the various interests could be to grant individual members of the public an automatic royalty free license to make copies of a deceased author's works for personal, non-commercial use, within a short period after the author's death, maybe 15 years, while maintaining the full death+75 year copyright for commercial use, copying, or making derivative works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740459</id>
	<title>This makes me sad.</title>
	<author>seekret</author>
	<datestamp>1247929500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is just plain wrong. To think... I loved you Amazon. At least I feel better in my decision to stick with good old paper for non public domain books and to just use my PMP/computer for reading the classics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is just plain wrong .
To think... I loved you Amazon .
At least I feel better in my decision to stick with good old paper for non public domain books and to just use my PMP/computer for reading the classics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is just plain wrong.
To think... I loved you Amazon.
At least I feel better in my decision to stick with good old paper for non public domain books and to just use my PMP/computer for reading the classics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744805</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>niteshifter</author>
	<datestamp>1247927640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's try this instead:<br> <br>
wget <a href="http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984.pdf" title="planetebook.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984.pdf</a> [planetebook.com] <br> <br>
or 2 page layout:<br> <br>
wget <a href="http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984-2.pdf" title="planetebook.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984-2.pdf</a> [planetebook.com] <br> <br>
wget <a href="http://www.msxnet.org/orwell/print/animal\_farm.pdf" title="msxnet.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.msxnet.org/orwell/print/animal\_farm.pdf</a> [msxnet.org] <br> <br>
I have mod points. Happily sacificed. Now on the count of three - everybody wget 'em<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br> <br>
"License to read" == bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's try this instead : wget http : //www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984.pdf [ planetebook.com ] or 2 page layout : wget http : //www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984-2.pdf [ planetebook.com ] wget http : //www.msxnet.org/orwell/print/animal \ _farm.pdf [ msxnet.org ] I have mod points .
Happily sacificed .
Now on the count of three - everybody wget 'em ; ) " License to read " = = bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's try this instead: 
wget http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984.pdf [planetebook.com]  
or 2 page layout: 
wget http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984-2.pdf [planetebook.com]  
wget http://www.msxnet.org/orwell/print/animal\_farm.pdf [msxnet.org]  
I have mod points.
Happily sacificed.
Now on the count of three - everybody wget 'em ;) 
"License to read" == bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736451</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247834100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody mod this bozo down, and quick! He gets several issues very wrong here. First, the company did have the legal right to sell the Orwell works. However, they chose to stop selling ebooks through Amazon. For whatever reason, Amazon caved into their request that all copies be pulled. Second, you are allowed to sell versions of Public Domain works, much in the same way you are allowed to sell copies of open source software. There's nothing inherently illegal about that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody mod this bozo down , and quick !
He gets several issues very wrong here .
First , the company did have the legal right to sell the Orwell works .
However , they chose to stop selling ebooks through Amazon .
For whatever reason , Amazon caved into their request that all copies be pulled .
Second , you are allowed to sell versions of Public Domain works , much in the same way you are allowed to sell copies of open source software .
There 's nothing inherently illegal about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody mod this bozo down, and quick!
He gets several issues very wrong here.
First, the company did have the legal right to sell the Orwell works.
However, they chose to stop selling ebooks through Amazon.
For whatever reason, Amazon caved into their request that all copies be pulled.
Second, you are allowed to sell versions of Public Domain works, much in the same way you are allowed to sell copies of open source software.
There's nothing inherently illegal about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736645</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>William Ager</author>
	<datestamp>1247835480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. When I buy something on my Kindle, I am buying a "non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times". That is what they gave me. The device is my property, and while the copy does not belong to me under certain definitions of ownership, I have a licence to use it in perpetuity. As far as I can tell from a cursory glance, what they did here is not permitted by their own licence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
When I buy something on my Kindle , I am buying a " non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view , use , and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times " .
That is what they gave me .
The device is my property , and while the copy does not belong to me under certain definitions of ownership , I have a licence to use it in perpetuity .
As far as I can tell from a cursory glance , what they did here is not permitted by their own licence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
When I buy something on my Kindle, I am buying a "non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times".
That is what they gave me.
The device is my property, and while the copy does not belong to me under certain definitions of ownership, I have a licence to use it in perpetuity.
As far as I can tell from a cursory glance, what they did here is not permitted by their own licence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739033</id>
	<title>Fahrenheit 451</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247907960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Stick with dead tree editions..<br>&gt; For stuff you really want to have access to permanently.</p><p>Well, at least until they start imitating Fahrenheit 451...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Stick with dead tree editions.. &gt; For stuff you really want to have access to permanently.Well , at least until they start imitating Fahrenheit 451.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Stick with dead tree editions..&gt; For stuff you really want to have access to permanently.Well, at least until they start imitating Fahrenheit 451...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, let's turn down the rhetoric a couple of notches.  There are two aspects to this -</p><p>1) This does not appear to be a case where the publisher just "changed their minds."  1984 and Animal Farm are, through the usual idiocy, under copyright in the US but not in other countries, so someone re-publishing the text without paying the copyright licensing is breaking the law, and Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property.  (Equivalent: buying software that illegally includes GPL code).  If you buy a stolen ipod, it can get confiscated by the police.</p><p>2) However, this does reveal a pretty worrying tendency to kill books first, clarify later.  If Amazon had just sent out refunds, plus notes that "Due to an oversight, if you are in the U.S., this version of 1984 is unauthorized," that would have seemed sensible.</p><p>My suggestion - use the Kindle if you like (I love mine), but backup your books, strip the DRM, and pirate shamelessly.  Casual piracy adds features to ebooks - the ability to lend and trade books, which is how we all got hooked in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , let 's turn down the rhetoric a couple of notches .
There are two aspects to this -1 ) This does not appear to be a case where the publisher just " changed their minds .
" 1984 and Animal Farm are , through the usual idiocy , under copyright in the US but not in other countries , so someone re-publishing the text without paying the copyright licensing is breaking the law , and Kindle customers have , in effect , been sold " stolen " property .
( Equivalent : buying software that illegally includes GPL code ) .
If you buy a stolen ipod , it can get confiscated by the police.2 ) However , this does reveal a pretty worrying tendency to kill books first , clarify later .
If Amazon had just sent out refunds , plus notes that " Due to an oversight , if you are in the U.S. , this version of 1984 is unauthorized , " that would have seemed sensible.My suggestion - use the Kindle if you like ( I love mine ) , but backup your books , strip the DRM , and pirate shamelessly .
Casual piracy adds features to ebooks - the ability to lend and trade books , which is how we all got hooked in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, let's turn down the rhetoric a couple of notches.
There are two aspects to this -1) This does not appear to be a case where the publisher just "changed their minds.
"  1984 and Animal Farm are, through the usual idiocy, under copyright in the US but not in other countries, so someone re-publishing the text without paying the copyright licensing is breaking the law, and Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property.
(Equivalent: buying software that illegally includes GPL code).
If you buy a stolen ipod, it can get confiscated by the police.2) However, this does reveal a pretty worrying tendency to kill books first, clarify later.
If Amazon had just sent out refunds, plus notes that "Due to an oversight, if you are in the U.S., this version of 1984 is unauthorized," that would have seemed sensible.My suggestion - use the Kindle if you like (I love mine), but backup your books, strip the DRM, and pirate shamelessly.
Casual piracy adds features to ebooks - the ability to lend and trade books, which is how we all got hooked in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738221</id>
	<title>Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>SupremoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247851140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who finds the books in question ironic?</p><p>*DUCKS FOR COVER*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who finds the books in question ironic ?
* DUCKS FOR COVER *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who finds the books in question ironic?
*DUCKS FOR COVER*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736977</id>
	<title>This is why eBooks keep failing</title>
	<author>Frightened\_Turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1247837760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why eBook readers and books keep failing. Every eBook reader company to date has failed at some point because they so lock up the books that consumers have no confidence in the product.</p><p>Perhaps Amazon is merely using this as a marketing scheme to drive people <i>away</i> from ebooks and sticking with killing trees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why eBook readers and books keep failing .
Every eBook reader company to date has failed at some point because they so lock up the books that consumers have no confidence in the product.Perhaps Amazon is merely using this as a marketing scheme to drive people away from ebooks and sticking with killing trees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why eBook readers and books keep failing.
Every eBook reader company to date has failed at some point because they so lock up the books that consumers have no confidence in the product.Perhaps Amazon is merely using this as a marketing scheme to drive people away from ebooks and sticking with killing trees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740457</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>BarefootClown</author>
	<datestamp>1247929440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're just noticing this?  Online news has been doing this forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're just noticing this ?
Online news has been doing this forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're just noticing this?
Online news has been doing this forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740695</id>
	<title>Better question--How is this not hacking?</title>
	<author>bornagainpenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1247931360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.  Going exactly by the comparison you have just made this is a classic textbook example of the kind of stuff the po-po sent hundreds of hackers to prison on by claiming this was breaking and entering.<br>
&nbsp; <br>--bornagainpenguin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Going exactly by the comparison you have just made this is a classic textbook example of the kind of stuff the po-po sent hundreds of hackers to prison on by claiming this was breaking and entering .
  --bornagainpenguin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Going exactly by the comparison you have just made this is a classic textbook example of the kind of stuff the po-po sent hundreds of hackers to prison on by claiming this was breaking and entering.
  --bornagainpenguin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739747</id>
	<title>Re:Stick with dead tree editions..</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1247920500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's also a nice way to remove carbon dioxide from the air<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's also a nice way to remove carbon dioxide from the air ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's also a nice way to remove carbon dioxide from the air ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739823</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1247921880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This happens all the time (the Major Leage Baseball deletions, Microsoft's older DRM, etc). The difference here is that Amazon was generous enough to refund the price; usually the company just keeps it because "all sales are final".</p><p>Personally I think they should be banned from using the word sale; indefinite rental is more accurate.</p></div><p>Either it's a sale or it's a rental. The law doesn't recognize anything else (or at least nothing else that's remotely relevant given that a consideration is changing hands). Given that Amazon are retrospectively trying to change what the contract terms are under which they offered the works, it is exactly right that at the same time they compensate those materially affected. Without that, they'd have been inviting a lawsuit (and no, I don't think that a click-through "binding" boilerplate would have got them off the hook given the overwhelming disparity in power of the parties to the contract).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This happens all the time ( the Major Leage Baseball deletions , Microsoft 's older DRM , etc ) .
The difference here is that Amazon was generous enough to refund the price ; usually the company just keeps it because " all sales are final " .Personally I think they should be banned from using the word sale ; indefinite rental is more accurate.Either it 's a sale or it 's a rental .
The law does n't recognize anything else ( or at least nothing else that 's remotely relevant given that a consideration is changing hands ) .
Given that Amazon are retrospectively trying to change what the contract terms are under which they offered the works , it is exactly right that at the same time they compensate those materially affected .
Without that , they 'd have been inviting a lawsuit ( and no , I do n't think that a click-through " binding " boilerplate would have got them off the hook given the overwhelming disparity in power of the parties to the contract ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happens all the time (the Major Leage Baseball deletions, Microsoft's older DRM, etc).
The difference here is that Amazon was generous enough to refund the price; usually the company just keeps it because "all sales are final".Personally I think they should be banned from using the word sale; indefinite rental is more accurate.Either it's a sale or it's a rental.
The law doesn't recognize anything else (or at least nothing else that's remotely relevant given that a consideration is changing hands).
Given that Amazon are retrospectively trying to change what the contract terms are under which they offered the works, it is exactly right that at the same time they compensate those materially affected.
Without that, they'd have been inviting a lawsuit (and no, I don't think that a click-through "binding" boilerplate would have got them off the hook given the overwhelming disparity in power of the parties to the contract).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739547</id>
	<title>Re:The author has been dead for 60 years!</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1247916780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First, it would deprive the author's heirs of their rightful claim to the income generated from the late author's work.</i></p><p>I strongly disagree with your use of the word 'rightful'.  Copyright should only be able to be held as long as the author is alive, and either by the author, or by someone the author transfers it to.</p><p><i>As a society, we don't say that a person's physical property becomes "public property" as soon as they die, so why should their financial interest in intangible property end when they die?</i></p><p>Because a financial interest in intangible property is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from physical property.  It's not inherently held by anybody, once it is 'out there' and copyable; its distribution being very much artificially restricted by government as it is, and I see absolutely no inherent reason to consider it to be like physical property.</p><p>I could just as easily say that a house a builder builds no longer belongs to him once he's sold it.  Why doesn't he and his family get to keep profiting from it for years and years?  Because it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing from the physical property he owns, so stop drawing silly analogies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , it would deprive the author 's heirs of their rightful claim to the income generated from the late author 's work.I strongly disagree with your use of the word 'rightful' .
Copyright should only be able to be held as long as the author is alive , and either by the author , or by someone the author transfers it to.As a society , we do n't say that a person 's physical property becomes " public property " as soon as they die , so why should their financial interest in intangible property end when they die ? Because a financial interest in intangible property is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from physical property .
It 's not inherently held by anybody , once it is 'out there ' and copyable ; its distribution being very much artificially restricted by government as it is , and I see absolutely no inherent reason to consider it to be like physical property.I could just as easily say that a house a builder builds no longer belongs to him once he 's sold it .
Why does n't he and his family get to keep profiting from it for years and years ?
Because it 's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing from the physical property he owns , so stop drawing silly analogies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, it would deprive the author's heirs of their rightful claim to the income generated from the late author's work.I strongly disagree with your use of the word 'rightful'.
Copyright should only be able to be held as long as the author is alive, and either by the author, or by someone the author transfers it to.As a society, we don't say that a person's physical property becomes "public property" as soon as they die, so why should their financial interest in intangible property end when they die?Because a financial interest in intangible property is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from physical property.
It's not inherently held by anybody, once it is 'out there' and copyable; its distribution being very much artificially restricted by government as it is, and I see absolutely no inherent reason to consider it to be like physical property.I could just as easily say that a house a builder builds no longer belongs to him once he's sold it.
Why doesn't he and his family get to keep profiting from it for years and years?
Because it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing from the physical property he owns, so stop drawing silly analogies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736329</id>
	<title>Please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247833500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vote with your wallets. *Do not buy kindles*.<br>If you own one and are sickened by this, sell it second-hand for 4/5 of the price. This, more than anything, will hurt Amazon. Let them know why you're reselling/refusing to buy, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vote with your wallets .
* Do not buy kindles * .If you own one and are sickened by this , sell it second-hand for 4/5 of the price .
This , more than anything , will hurt Amazon .
Let them know why you 're reselling/refusing to buy , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vote with your wallets.
*Do not buy kindles*.If you own one and are sickened by this, sell it second-hand for 4/5 of the price.
This, more than anything, will hurt Amazon.
Let them know why you're reselling/refusing to buy, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742023</id>
	<title>Why Kindle when there is Hanlin and others?</title>
	<author>Artemis3</author>
	<datestamp>1247942580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why people buy Kindles when there is a myriad of asian counterparts that can do the same much better, without DRM or remote control whatsoever, and able to render<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf, graphic formats and other ebook formats?. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlin\_eReader" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlin\_eReader</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://www.jinke.com.cn/Compagesql/English/embedpro/index.asp" title="jinke.com.cn">http://www.jinke.com.cn/Compagesql/English/embedpro/index.asp</a> [jinke.com.cn]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why people buy Kindles when there is a myriad of asian counterparts that can do the same much better , without DRM or remote control whatsoever , and able to render .pdf , graphic formats and other ebook formats ? .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlin \ _eReader [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.jinke.com.cn/Compagesql/English/embedpro/index.asp [ jinke.com.cn ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why people buy Kindles when there is a myriad of asian counterparts that can do the same much better, without DRM or remote control whatsoever, and able to render .pdf, graphic formats and other ebook formats?.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlin\_eReader [wikipedia.org] http://www.jinke.com.cn/Compagesql/English/embedpro/index.asp [jinke.com.cn]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744141</id>
	<title>Re:Once again Slashdot posts stupid headlines.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand that last sentence.  What exactly are they going to do?  Remove their own ability to do this?  If there is a way for customers to keep the books in these circumstances, why didn't they apply it to this situation as well?</p><p>Maybe they mean they are implementing measures to ensure this situation doesn't occur again, but that isn't what they are actually saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand that last sentence .
What exactly are they going to do ?
Remove their own ability to do this ?
If there is a way for customers to keep the books in these circumstances , why did n't they apply it to this situation as well ? Maybe they mean they are implementing measures to ensure this situation does n't occur again , but that is n't what they are actually saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand that last sentence.
What exactly are they going to do?
Remove their own ability to do this?
If there is a way for customers to keep the books in these circumstances, why didn't they apply it to this situation as well?Maybe they mean they are implementing measures to ensure this situation doesn't occur again, but that isn't what they are actually saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737557</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon's new product</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1247842920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Double plus ungood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Double plus ungood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Double plus ungood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742335</id>
	<title>I had 1984 on my Kindle</title>
	<author>dsypul</author>
	<datestamp>1247944980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had 1984 on my Kindle and I am not upset that it has been removed.  Truth be told, those that have replied bashing Amazon and DRM are the perfect candidates for bringing the fiction of 1984 into reality.  I think that Amazon is trying to bring as much content to the Kindle as quickly as possible, they are doing this by allowing third parties to publish material to the Kindle.  It was a third party that violated copyright of the books, Amazon did the right thing by honoring the copyright!</p><p>Downloading copyrighted material is stealing, you aren't stealing from Amazon or any other retailer.  You are stealing from the artist or the estate of the artist that created the work.  It takes talent and many hours of dedication (10,000+ if you agree with Malcolm Gladwell) to produce a book such as 1984.  The artist's motivation may be the love of their art form, but it is the market for the art that sustains them and their family.  You want a world devoid of art?  Abolish DRM, encourage open piracy and when the majority enjoys art with out compensating the artist see how many choose to pursue it full time.</p><p>For everyone bitching about DRM, you can do something about it.  Take your talent, spend 10,000 hours polishing your craft and then produce works that are free to the public.</p><p>Here is the message from Amazon:</p><p> <i>
Hello,<br> <br>

We have recently refunded your purchase of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR (1984). This book was added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books.  When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and refunded previous customers.
<br> <br>
We are working with the authorized rights holder to make this title available in our store very soon.  We apologize for the inconvenience.
<br> <br>

Sincerely,<br> <br>

Customer Service Department<br>
Amazon.com</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had 1984 on my Kindle and I am not upset that it has been removed .
Truth be told , those that have replied bashing Amazon and DRM are the perfect candidates for bringing the fiction of 1984 into reality .
I think that Amazon is trying to bring as much content to the Kindle as quickly as possible , they are doing this by allowing third parties to publish material to the Kindle .
It was a third party that violated copyright of the books , Amazon did the right thing by honoring the copyright ! Downloading copyrighted material is stealing , you are n't stealing from Amazon or any other retailer .
You are stealing from the artist or the estate of the artist that created the work .
It takes talent and many hours of dedication ( 10,000 + if you agree with Malcolm Gladwell ) to produce a book such as 1984 .
The artist 's motivation may be the love of their art form , but it is the market for the art that sustains them and their family .
You want a world devoid of art ?
Abolish DRM , encourage open piracy and when the majority enjoys art with out compensating the artist see how many choose to pursue it full time.For everyone bitching about DRM , you can do something about it .
Take your talent , spend 10,000 hours polishing your craft and then produce works that are free to the public.Here is the message from Amazon : Hello , We have recently refunded your purchase of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR ( 1984 ) .
This book was added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books .
When we were notified of this by the rights holder , we removed the illegal copies from our systems and refunded previous customers .
We are working with the authorized rights holder to make this title available in our store very soon .
We apologize for the inconvenience .
Sincerely , Customer Service Department Amazon.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had 1984 on my Kindle and I am not upset that it has been removed.
Truth be told, those that have replied bashing Amazon and DRM are the perfect candidates for bringing the fiction of 1984 into reality.
I think that Amazon is trying to bring as much content to the Kindle as quickly as possible, they are doing this by allowing third parties to publish material to the Kindle.
It was a third party that violated copyright of the books, Amazon did the right thing by honoring the copyright!Downloading copyrighted material is stealing, you aren't stealing from Amazon or any other retailer.
You are stealing from the artist or the estate of the artist that created the work.
It takes talent and many hours of dedication (10,000+ if you agree with Malcolm Gladwell) to produce a book such as 1984.
The artist's motivation may be the love of their art form, but it is the market for the art that sustains them and their family.
You want a world devoid of art?
Abolish DRM, encourage open piracy and when the majority enjoys art with out compensating the artist see how many choose to pursue it full time.For everyone bitching about DRM, you can do something about it.
Take your talent, spend 10,000 hours polishing your craft and then produce works that are free to the public.Here is the message from Amazon: 
Hello, 

We have recently refunded your purchase of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR (1984).
This book was added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books.
When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and refunded previous customers.
We are working with the authorized rights holder to make this title available in our store very soon.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Sincerely, 

Customer Service Department
Amazon.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737009</id>
	<title>At least they got their money back...</title>
	<author>Lucky75</author>
	<datestamp>1247838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, at least they gave them their money back, unlike the DRM music stores that closed down. But let this be a(nother) lesson to everyone, don't pay for media that you don't phyiscally (or electronically) own and have full control over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , at least they gave them their money back , unlike the DRM music stores that closed down .
But let this be a ( nother ) lesson to everyone , do n't pay for media that you do n't phyiscally ( or electronically ) own and have full control over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, at least they gave them their money back, unlike the DRM music stores that closed down.
But let this be a(nother) lesson to everyone, don't pay for media that you don't phyiscally (or electronically) own and have full control over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736075</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Forge</author>
	<datestamp>1247831880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Irony so thick, even my warped mind could not have manufactured it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Irony so thick , even my warped mind could not have manufactured it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irony so thick, even my warped mind could not have manufactured it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735975</id>
	<title>Why Buy it When you Can Get it Legally for Free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247831220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would buy a book from a publisher and sales person who think it's okay to sell you DRM crap and then take it away on a whim when you can get those exact same books legally, and for free?</p><p>Animal Farm: <a href="http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011.txt" title="gutenberg.net.au">http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011.txt</a> [gutenberg.net.au]</p><p>1984: <a href="http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt" title="gutenberg.net.au">http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt</a> [gutenberg.net.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would buy a book from a publisher and sales person who think it 's okay to sell you DRM crap and then take it away on a whim when you can get those exact same books legally , and for free ? Animal Farm : http : //gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011.txt [ gutenberg.net.au ] 1984 : http : //gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt [ gutenberg.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would buy a book from a publisher and sales person who think it's okay to sell you DRM crap and then take it away on a whim when you can get those exact same books legally, and for free?Animal Farm: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011.txt [gutenberg.net.au]1984: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt [gutenberg.net.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737407</id>
	<title>Re:Forced to download edits to books</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1247841360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I would agree you've got a reason for contention for this, something like The Stand isn't like 1984 or Animal Farm. While The Stand is certainly a noteworthy work of fiction, it is not even in the same category of works that Orwell's are by the simple fact of their political discourse/criticism and the impact they've had on society. They are not solely a work of fiction, they are historical and political commentary - making this act akin to the very acts spoken of in the books ("book burning" if you will).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I would agree you 've got a reason for contention for this , something like The Stand is n't like 1984 or Animal Farm .
While The Stand is certainly a noteworthy work of fiction , it is not even in the same category of works that Orwell 's are by the simple fact of their political discourse/criticism and the impact they 've had on society .
They are not solely a work of fiction , they are historical and political commentary - making this act akin to the very acts spoken of in the books ( " book burning " if you will ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I would agree you've got a reason for contention for this, something like The Stand isn't like 1984 or Animal Farm.
While The Stand is certainly a noteworthy work of fiction, it is not even in the same category of works that Orwell's are by the simple fact of their political discourse/criticism and the impact they've had on society.
They are not solely a work of fiction, they are historical and political commentary - making this act akin to the very acts spoken of in the books ("book burning" if you will).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739385</id>
	<title>Re:Digital Smoke Screen</title>
	<author>haifastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1247913600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that it's not your property. Amazon \_rents\_ the kindle and \_licenses\_ the content. They call it "buying" as a marketing gimmick, but the terms of service are clear that it is a rental and a license. The frustration should be levied at the regulators who should stop them from using terms like "buying" or "purchasing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that it 's not your property .
Amazon \ _rents \ _ the kindle and \ _licenses \ _ the content .
They call it " buying " as a marketing gimmick , but the terms of service are clear that it is a rental and a license .
The frustration should be levied at the regulators who should stop them from using terms like " buying " or " purchasing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that it's not your property.
Amazon \_rents\_ the kindle and \_licenses\_ the content.
They call it "buying" as a marketing gimmick, but the terms of service are clear that it is a rental and a license.
The frustration should be levied at the regulators who should stop them from using terms like "buying" or "purchasing".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247831100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This happens all the time (the Major Leage Baseball deletions, Microsoft's older DRM, etc). The difference here is that Amazon was generous enough to refund the price; usually the company just keeps it because "all sales are final".</p><p>Personally I think they should be banned from using the word sale; indefinite rental is more accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This happens all the time ( the Major Leage Baseball deletions , Microsoft 's older DRM , etc ) .
The difference here is that Amazon was generous enough to refund the price ; usually the company just keeps it because " all sales are final " .Personally I think they should be banned from using the word sale ; indefinite rental is more accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happens all the time (the Major Leage Baseball deletions, Microsoft's older DRM, etc).
The difference here is that Amazon was generous enough to refund the price; usually the company just keeps it because "all sales are final".Personally I think they should be banned from using the word sale; indefinite rental is more accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740669</id>
	<title>I'm sure this is NOT a contract, okay!</title>
	<author>bornagainpenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1247931120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A contract is binding on two parties--not one party gets to do whatever the hell they want while the other is obligated to put up with it.<br> <br>--bornagainpenguin</htmltext>
<tokenext>A contract is binding on two parties--not one party gets to do whatever the hell they want while the other is obligated to put up with it .
--bornagainpenguin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A contract is binding on two parties--not one party gets to do whatever the hell they want while the other is obligated to put up with it.
--bornagainpenguin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736617</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1247835300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not any different than if I took a public-domain work and tried to sell a Kindle version on Amazon.  Once it was discovered, Amazon should refund the end customers (which it has done in this case) and then take up action against me.</p></div><p>That would be perfectly legal. No-one will stop you selling public domain content for profit.</p><p>If indeed the "seller" didn't have rights to the book, it still isn't a simple matter of just deleting the copies. The infringement has already taken place. It doesn't give Amazon the right to delete content they sold.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not any different than if I took a public-domain work and tried to sell a Kindle version on Amazon .
Once it was discovered , Amazon should refund the end customers ( which it has done in this case ) and then take up action against me.That would be perfectly legal .
No-one will stop you selling public domain content for profit.If indeed the " seller " did n't have rights to the book , it still is n't a simple matter of just deleting the copies .
The infringement has already taken place .
It does n't give Amazon the right to delete content they sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not any different than if I took a public-domain work and tried to sell a Kindle version on Amazon.
Once it was discovered, Amazon should refund the end customers (which it has done in this case) and then take up action against me.That would be perfectly legal.
No-one will stop you selling public domain content for profit.If indeed the "seller" didn't have rights to the book, it still isn't a simple matter of just deleting the copies.
The infringement has already taken place.
It doesn't give Amazon the right to delete content they sold.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735999</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1247831340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they got a refund then it is probably OK. Besides it's probably in the EULA. You *did* read the EULA, didn't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they got a refund then it is probably OK. Besides it 's probably in the EULA .
You * did * read the EULA , did n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they got a refund then it is probably OK. Besides it's probably in the EULA.
You *did* read the EULA, didn't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736085</id>
	<title>We called it the "Library of Alexandria" problem.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1247832000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back on the Xanadu project we called the single-server model for content the "Library of Alexandria" problem:  A disaster wiping out the server (and its backups), like the burning of the Library of Alexandria when, for many works, it contained the only (or or one of very few) copies, permanently removes the documents served by that repository from the literature.  (The solution is the "multiple record" - mass printing of dead-tree books prior to automation, broad distribution of the immutable content and versioning information in the case of an "electronic literature".)</p><p>Of course centralized and mutable serving of content also enables, and greatly simplifies, the "rewriting of history" described by Orwell in the two books in question.  So it is particularly ironic that these are the ones that were pulled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back on the Xanadu project we called the single-server model for content the " Library of Alexandria " problem : A disaster wiping out the server ( and its backups ) , like the burning of the Library of Alexandria when , for many works , it contained the only ( or or one of very few ) copies , permanently removes the documents served by that repository from the literature .
( The solution is the " multiple record " - mass printing of dead-tree books prior to automation , broad distribution of the immutable content and versioning information in the case of an " electronic literature " .
) Of course centralized and mutable serving of content also enables , and greatly simplifies , the " rewriting of history " described by Orwell in the two books in question .
So it is particularly ironic that these are the ones that were pulled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back on the Xanadu project we called the single-server model for content the "Library of Alexandria" problem:  A disaster wiping out the server (and its backups), like the burning of the Library of Alexandria when, for many works, it contained the only (or or one of very few) copies, permanently removes the documents served by that repository from the literature.
(The solution is the "multiple record" - mass printing of dead-tree books prior to automation, broad distribution of the immutable content and versioning information in the case of an "electronic literature".
)Of course centralized and mutable serving of content also enables, and greatly simplifies, the "rewriting of history" described by Orwell in the two books in question.
So it is particularly ironic that these are the ones that were pulled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737471</id>
	<title>Re:suckers</title>
	<author>Mesa MIke</author>
	<datestamp>1247842080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; You know, it's one thing to be a Luddite,<br>&gt; and quite another to stay with reliable,<br>&gt; cheap, and fully functional technologies<br>&gt; until the newer alternatives truly surpass them.</p><p>Good point. That's why we need to keep oil, coal and natural gas around for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You know , it 's one thing to be a Luddite , &gt; and quite another to stay with reliable , &gt; cheap , and fully functional technologies &gt; until the newer alternatives truly surpass them.Good point .
That 's why we need to keep oil , coal and natural gas around for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; You know, it's one thing to be a Luddite,&gt; and quite another to stay with reliable,&gt; cheap, and fully functional technologies&gt; until the newer alternatives truly surpass them.Good point.
That's why we need to keep oil, coal and natural gas around for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736981</id>
	<title>What happened to the annotations?</title>
	<author>Obispus</author>
	<datestamp>1247837760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not familiar with the concrete capabilities of the Kindles, but I seem to recall that it's possible to annotate the ebooks. If Amazon deletes the ebook, do all its annotations get deleted as well? Annotations are the property of the person who wrote them (presumably, the device owner), so Amazon can't pissibly have a right to delete them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not familiar with the concrete capabilities of the Kindles , but I seem to recall that it 's possible to annotate the ebooks .
If Amazon deletes the ebook , do all its annotations get deleted as well ?
Annotations are the property of the person who wrote them ( presumably , the device owner ) , so Amazon ca n't pissibly have a right to delete them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not familiar with the concrete capabilities of the Kindles, but I seem to recall that it's possible to annotate the ebooks.
If Amazon deletes the ebook, do all its annotations get deleted as well?
Annotations are the property of the person who wrote them (presumably, the device owner), so Amazon can't pissibly have a right to delete them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740337</id>
	<title>Re:only pirates win</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1247928300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An even better long-term solution is to discard the device that gives companies the ability to do this to you, and use one that utilizes drm-free formats.  And by discard, I mean to chuck, get rid of, recycle, or throw away... I don't mean sell it to some other sap who will only end up supporting companies that pull this sort of crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An even better long-term solution is to discard the device that gives companies the ability to do this to you , and use one that utilizes drm-free formats .
And by discard , I mean to chuck , get rid of , recycle , or throw away... I do n't mean sell it to some other sap who will only end up supporting companies that pull this sort of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An even better long-term solution is to discard the device that gives companies the ability to do this to you, and use one that utilizes drm-free formats.
And by discard, I mean to chuck, get rid of, recycle, or throw away... I don't mean sell it to some other sap who will only end up supporting companies that pull this sort of crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28752849</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>LuYu</author>
	<datestamp>1248023940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
So, let me get this straight: You, Andrew Welch or "malice", claim that all people who defend the Constitution of the United States of America and its ideals are "hippies speaking in tongues"?  According to you, are George Washington and Benjamin Franklin hippies?
</p><p>
It sounds to me like you are a monarchist and should go back to the lands of the sovereign who <b>owns</b> you.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let me get this straight : You , Andrew Welch or " malice " , claim that all people who defend the Constitution of the United States of America and its ideals are " hippies speaking in tongues " ?
According to you , are George Washington and Benjamin Franklin hippies ?
It sounds to me like you are a monarchist and should go back to the lands of the sovereign who owns you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
So, let me get this straight: You, Andrew Welch or "malice", claim that all people who defend the Constitution of the United States of America and its ideals are "hippies speaking in tongues"?
According to you, are George Washington and Benjamin Franklin hippies?
It sounds to me like you are a monarchist and should go back to the lands of the sovereign who owns you.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736843</id>
	<title>Re:Class Action Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine, if you will, if every single person annoyed by such actions were to file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.</p><p>If Amazon.com wanted to do good on this travesty, they'd not only credit people's accounts, but give them a gift certificate for the trouble they have suffered.</p><p>But, Amazon.com being in Washington state, one idea might be to contact the state attorney general, since this seems wrong on some many levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine , if you will , if every single person annoyed by such actions were to file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.If Amazon.com wanted to do good on this travesty , they 'd not only credit people 's accounts , but give them a gift certificate for the trouble they have suffered.But , Amazon.com being in Washington state , one idea might be to contact the state attorney general , since this seems wrong on some many levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine, if you will, if every single person annoyed by such actions were to file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.If Amazon.com wanted to do good on this travesty, they'd not only credit people's accounts, but give them a gift certificate for the trouble they have suffered.But, Amazon.com being in Washington state, one idea might be to contact the state attorney general, since this seems wrong on some many levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743227</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>berend botje</author>
	<datestamp>1247909700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copyright is about making copies. Not about importing items. Importing a book is not copying a book. You can import every book on the planet and not worry about copyright.
<br> <br>
However, this \_is\_ about electrons. It was easy for Amazon to cancel the book on the Kindle, therefore they did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is about making copies .
Not about importing items .
Importing a book is not copying a book .
You can import every book on the planet and not worry about copyright .
However , this \ _is \ _ about electrons .
It was easy for Amazon to cancel the book on the Kindle , therefore they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright is about making copies.
Not about importing items.
Importing a book is not copying a book.
You can import every book on the planet and not worry about copyright.
However, this \_is\_ about electrons.
It was easy for Amazon to cancel the book on the Kindle, therefore they did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742251</id>
	<title>Your Rations</title>
	<author>Danimoth</author>
	<datestamp>1247944260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your ration of 1984 has been increased to 0 copies in celebration of a great victory!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ration of 1984 has been increased to 0 copies in celebration of a great victory !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ration of 1984 has been increased to 0 copies in celebration of a great victory!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736581</id>
	<title>Re:Forced to download edits to books</title>
	<author>hannson</author>
	<datestamp>1247835060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better yet, imagine this:</p><p> <i>The year is 1984 in a dystopian future, in a repressive, totalitarian state. Historical facts and documents have been rewritten and revised so many times that even the correct year is uncertain. Posters of the ruling Party's leader, "Amazon", bearing the caption AMAZON IS WATCHING YOU, dominate the city landscapes, while two-way Kindles (the e-book reader)  which dominate the "private" and public spaces of the populace are being re-written at Amazon's will to change facts, censor illegal words or to delete/burn ebooks that get in the way of its propaganda...</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , imagine this : The year is 1984 in a dystopian future , in a repressive , totalitarian state .
Historical facts and documents have been rewritten and revised so many times that even the correct year is uncertain .
Posters of the ruling Party 's leader , " Amazon " , bearing the caption AMAZON IS WATCHING YOU , dominate the city landscapes , while two-way Kindles ( the e-book reader ) which dominate the " private " and public spaces of the populace are being re-written at Amazon 's will to change facts , censor illegal words or to delete/burn ebooks that get in the way of its propaganda.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, imagine this: The year is 1984 in a dystopian future, in a repressive, totalitarian state.
Historical facts and documents have been rewritten and revised so many times that even the correct year is uncertain.
Posters of the ruling Party's leader, "Amazon", bearing the caption AMAZON IS WATCHING YOU, dominate the city landscapes, while two-way Kindles (the e-book reader)  which dominate the "private" and public spaces of the populace are being re-written at Amazon's will to change facts, censor illegal words or to delete/burn ebooks that get in the way of its propaganda... </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738641</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247858700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Taking an iPod from somebody <em>deprives</em> that person of an iPod</i></p><p>Wow, someone went and made the emphasis tag <em>awesome</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking an iPod from somebody deprives that person of an iPodWow , someone went and made the emphasis tag awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking an iPod from somebody deprives that person of an iPodWow, someone went and made the emphasis tag awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738381</id>
	<title>Kindle is for burning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247853360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>save the books! let them not burn! go pdf/netbook! he kindle Blows and should be tossed to the fires...wait, isn't amazon abandoning it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>save the books !
let them not burn !
go pdf/netbook !
he kindle Blows and should be tossed to the fires...wait , is n't amazon abandoning it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>save the books!
let them not burn!
go pdf/netbook!
he kindle Blows and should be tossed to the fires...wait, isn't amazon abandoning it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736173</id>
	<title>Kindle has a remote kill feature?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had no idea that Kindle had such a feature where Amazon can wipe stuff off your device without your permission.<br> <br>

I was seriously considering buying one for myself, and one for my brother's birthday (pre-loaded with all his favorite SF novels). No way in hell i'm gonna buy one now. I guess he's getting a set of ShamWow this year.<br> <br>

BTW do iPods have a similar feature, wherein Apple can delete shit off your ipod that you purchased from iTunes? I've been wanting to buy an iPod Touch and access the App store for a while now, but the things that kept me from it are 1) battery not user-replaceable and 2) concerns about hidden powers Apple might have to mess with my device without me knowing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had no idea that Kindle had such a feature where Amazon can wipe stuff off your device without your permission .
I was seriously considering buying one for myself , and one for my brother 's birthday ( pre-loaded with all his favorite SF novels ) .
No way in hell i 'm gon na buy one now .
I guess he 's getting a set of ShamWow this year .
BTW do iPods have a similar feature , wherein Apple can delete shit off your ipod that you purchased from iTunes ?
I 've been wanting to buy an iPod Touch and access the App store for a while now , but the things that kept me from it are 1 ) battery not user-replaceable and 2 ) concerns about hidden powers Apple might have to mess with my device without me knowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had no idea that Kindle had such a feature where Amazon can wipe stuff off your device without your permission.
I was seriously considering buying one for myself, and one for my brother's birthday (pre-loaded with all his favorite SF novels).
No way in hell i'm gonna buy one now.
I guess he's getting a set of ShamWow this year.
BTW do iPods have a similar feature, wherein Apple can delete shit off your ipod that you purchased from iTunes?
I've been wanting to buy an iPod Touch and access the App store for a while now, but the things that kept me from it are 1) battery not user-replaceable and 2) concerns about hidden powers Apple might have to mess with my device without me knowing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743327</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Warhawke</author>
	<datestamp>1247910660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taking an iPod from somebody <b> <em>deprives</em> that person of an iPod</b>.  Having an extra copy of a book <b>does not take <em>any</em>thing from <em>any</em>one</b>.  Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.</p></div><p>I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  The reason why we have copyright law in the first place is because owning or producing a "copy" DOES take something away from the original producer.  Copyright law exists because it provides financial incentive for research and development.  No one would dare dump millions of dollars into researching drugs or technology if the next schmuck who came after could copy their work and publish it without and R&amp;D costs.  Without those laws, the original producer would lose all of those future cash flows (which ARE substantial and very real).  Copyright law, as it was introduced as an intermediary between producer and consumer rights, is a good thing.  The way it's been extended to entirely forsake consumer rights is what's criminal and wrong, NOT copyright law itself.  Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Dons the "Score -1: Disagree" suit</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking an iPod from somebody deprives that person of an iPod .
Having an extra copy of a book does not take anything from anyone .
Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.I 'm sorry , but you are wrong .
The reason why we have copyright law in the first place is because owning or producing a " copy " DOES take something away from the original producer .
Copyright law exists because it provides financial incentive for research and development .
No one would dare dump millions of dollars into researching drugs or technology if the next schmuck who came after could copy their work and publish it without and R&amp;D costs .
Without those laws , the original producer would lose all of those future cash flows ( which ARE substantial and very real ) .
Copyright law , as it was introduced as an intermediary between producer and consumer rights , is a good thing .
The way it 's been extended to entirely forsake consumer rights is what 's criminal and wrong , NOT copyright law itself .
Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum .
/Dons the " Score -1 : Disagree " suit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking an iPod from somebody  deprives that person of an iPod.
Having an extra copy of a book does not take anything from anyone.
Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
The reason why we have copyright law in the first place is because owning or producing a "copy" DOES take something away from the original producer.
Copyright law exists because it provides financial incentive for research and development.
No one would dare dump millions of dollars into researching drugs or technology if the next schmuck who came after could copy their work and publish it without and R&amp;D costs.
Without those laws, the original producer would lose all of those future cash flows (which ARE substantial and very real).
Copyright law, as it was introduced as an intermediary between producer and consumer rights, is a good thing.
The way it's been extended to entirely forsake consumer rights is what's criminal and wrong, NOT copyright law itself.
Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum.
/Dons the "Score -1: Disagree" suit
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740179</id>
	<title>it was a stupid idea to begin with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247926920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all i have to say is who didn't see this coming?<br>I mean, com'n you want to replace a hard copy paper book with something that can be arbitrarily edited or deleted by the powers that be?  and for what?  so that you can look cool because you have some fancy electronic device instead of a few hundred pages bound together?</p><p>there's no need to go reinventing the book.  especially the way we reinvent things today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all i have to say is who did n't see this coming ? I mean , com'n you want to replace a hard copy paper book with something that can be arbitrarily edited or deleted by the powers that be ?
and for what ?
so that you can look cool because you have some fancy electronic device instead of a few hundred pages bound together ? there 's no need to go reinventing the book .
especially the way we reinvent things today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all i have to say is who didn't see this coming?I mean, com'n you want to replace a hard copy paper book with something that can be arbitrarily edited or deleted by the powers that be?
and for what?
so that you can look cool because you have some fancy electronic device instead of a few hundred pages bound together?there's no need to go reinventing the book.
especially the way we reinvent things today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736943</id>
	<title>I own a Kindle and my copy of 1984 is still there.</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1247837520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I didn't buy it from Amazon.</p><p>And more and more I'm looking at alternative sources for any ebooks I buy, because Amazon keeps doing this kind of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I did n't buy it from Amazon.And more and more I 'm looking at alternative sources for any ebooks I buy , because Amazon keeps doing this kind of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I didn't buy it from Amazon.And more and more I'm looking at alternative sources for any ebooks I buy, because Amazon keeps doing this kind of shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736273</id>
	<title>Re:The author has been dead for 60 years!</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1247833140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At most, copyright should last for until original authors death + ZERO years.

For commissioned work where the creator was never the rights holder, it should last for average life expectancy minus the average age of a country's workforce - retested regularly (though not frequently).

Anything else is ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At most , copyright should last for until original authors death + ZERO years .
For commissioned work where the creator was never the rights holder , it should last for average life expectancy minus the average age of a country 's workforce - retested regularly ( though not frequently ) .
Anything else is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At most, copyright should last for until original authors death + ZERO years.
For commissioned work where the creator was never the rights holder, it should last for average life expectancy minus the average age of a country's workforce - retested regularly (though not frequently).
Anything else is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738731</id>
	<title>Should not have trusted Amazon.</title>
	<author>krischik</author>
	<datestamp>1247859900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How good that my Sony PRS 505 has no wireless connection. no one deletes anything of that one except me. All my books are backupted also Mac and from the to my Time TimeCapsule.</p><p>And no, I don't trust Sony either - I use Calibre for Library management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How good that my Sony PRS 505 has no wireless connection .
no one deletes anything of that one except me .
All my books are backupted also Mac and from the to my Time TimeCapsule.And no , I do n't trust Sony either - I use Calibre for Library management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How good that my Sony PRS 505 has no wireless connection.
no one deletes anything of that one except me.
All my books are backupted also Mac and from the to my Time TimeCapsule.And no, I don't trust Sony either - I use Calibre for Library management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737809</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>blackest\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1247845560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was too lazy to add links but these guys do this</p><p><a href="http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/" title="alwaysinnovating.com">http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/</a> [alwaysinnovating.com]</p><p>esentially an Arm based netbook tablet with the guts behind the screen and a plug in keyboard which sort of turns it back into a netbook again.<br>It looks like the keyboard is weighted down with a battery to make a stable netbook.</p><p>Pricing appears to be $300 for the tablet or $400 for the tablet + keyboard  battery combo. I think they have used something like a wireless keyboard to get a unit which can work detached from the screen.</p><p>I'd like to introduce them to these guys</p><p><a href="http://pixelqi.com/" title="pixelqi.com">http://pixelqi.com/</a> [pixelqi.com]</p><p>who make these screens</p><p><a href="http://jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2009/06/hands-on-with-pixel-qis-new-epaper.html" title="blogspot.com">http://jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2009/06/hands-on-with-pixel-qis-new-epaper.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>Essentially its an LCD Screen which can turn off the backlight and run in a black and white mode  at quite a low power.</p><p>PixelQI used one of the first screens to mod an aspire one.</p><p>speaking of mods heres a nice diy version of an aspire one tablet.<br><a href="http://www.liliputing.com/2008/10/acer-aspire-one-retooled-as-a-tablet-style-umpc.html" title="liliputing.com">http://www.liliputing.com/2008/10/acer-aspire-one-retooled-as-a-tablet-style-umpc.html</a> [liliputing.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was too lazy to add links but these guys do thishttp : //www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/ [ alwaysinnovating.com ] esentially an Arm based netbook tablet with the guts behind the screen and a plug in keyboard which sort of turns it back into a netbook again.It looks like the keyboard is weighted down with a battery to make a stable netbook.Pricing appears to be $ 300 for the tablet or $ 400 for the tablet + keyboard battery combo .
I think they have used something like a wireless keyboard to get a unit which can work detached from the screen.I 'd like to introduce them to these guyshttp : //pixelqi.com/ [ pixelqi.com ] who make these screenshttp : //jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2009/06/hands-on-with-pixel-qis-new-epaper.html [ blogspot.com ] Essentially its an LCD Screen which can turn off the backlight and run in a black and white mode at quite a low power.PixelQI used one of the first screens to mod an aspire one.speaking of mods heres a nice diy version of an aspire one tablet.http : //www.liliputing.com/2008/10/acer-aspire-one-retooled-as-a-tablet-style-umpc.html [ liliputing.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was too lazy to add links but these guys do thishttp://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/ [alwaysinnovating.com]esentially an Arm based netbook tablet with the guts behind the screen and a plug in keyboard which sort of turns it back into a netbook again.It looks like the keyboard is weighted down with a battery to make a stable netbook.Pricing appears to be $300 for the tablet or $400 for the tablet + keyboard  battery combo.
I think they have used something like a wireless keyboard to get a unit which can work detached from the screen.I'd like to introduce them to these guyshttp://pixelqi.com/ [pixelqi.com]who make these screenshttp://jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2009/06/hands-on-with-pixel-qis-new-epaper.html [blogspot.com]Essentially its an LCD Screen which can turn off the backlight and run in a black and white mode  at quite a low power.PixelQI used one of the first screens to mod an aspire one.speaking of mods heres a nice diy version of an aspire one tablet.http://www.liliputing.com/2008/10/acer-aspire-one-retooled-as-a-tablet-style-umpc.html [liliputing.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205</id>
	<title>suckers</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1247832660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh dead tree books are so obsolete, even though they are cheap, last longer than I ever will, can't be altered from a distance, and don't need electricity! Same with CDs, DVDs, and other durable backup media that can't be taken from me and don't depend on some here-today-gone-tomorrow license server! And land lines! Who needs them when we have such fickle and expensive cell phone service with far less coverage!
<br>
<br>
You know, it's one thing to be a Luddite, and quite another to stay with reliable, cheap, and fully functional technologies until the newer alternatives truly surpass them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dead tree books are so obsolete , even though they are cheap , last longer than I ever will , ca n't be altered from a distance , and do n't need electricity !
Same with CDs , DVDs , and other durable backup media that ca n't be taken from me and do n't depend on some here-today-gone-tomorrow license server !
And land lines !
Who needs them when we have such fickle and expensive cell phone service with far less coverage !
You know , it 's one thing to be a Luddite , and quite another to stay with reliable , cheap , and fully functional technologies until the newer alternatives truly surpass them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dead tree books are so obsolete, even though they are cheap, last longer than I ever will, can't be altered from a distance, and don't need electricity!
Same with CDs, DVDs, and other durable backup media that can't be taken from me and don't depend on some here-today-gone-tomorrow license server!
And land lines!
Who needs them when we have such fickle and expensive cell phone service with far less coverage!
You know, it's one thing to be a Luddite, and quite another to stay with reliable, cheap, and fully functional technologies until the newer alternatives truly surpass them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736363</id>
	<title>could be worse</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1247833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least they issued refunds...

Many other uses of DRM don't even go that far when the auth server goes down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least they issued refunds.. . Many other uses of DRM do n't even go that far when the auth server goes down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least they issued refunds...

Many other uses of DRM don't even go that far when the auth server goes down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739207</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Frogbert</author>
	<datestamp>1247910720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Completely ot but how the hell did he get that "deprives" to look that way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Completely ot but how the hell did he get that " deprives " to look that way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Completely ot but how the hell did he get that "deprives" to look that way?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738689</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1247859420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand if you actually purchased a book you would still have it.</p><p>This is just a VERY good reason to avoid the Kindle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand if you actually purchased a book you would still have it.This is just a VERY good reason to avoid the Kindle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand if you actually purchased a book you would still have it.This is just a VERY good reason to avoid the Kindle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736805</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Changing topics a tad - To me, this superficially resembles the threat of eminent domain that we landowners face in the US. The consumer paid for something, and another entity is legally entitled to force the consumer to sell it back.</p><p>I guess, then, that what is at the heart of the issue is what you actually purchased from Amazon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing topics a tad - To me , this superficially resembles the threat of eminent domain that we landowners face in the US .
The consumer paid for something , and another entity is legally entitled to force the consumer to sell it back.I guess , then , that what is at the heart of the issue is what you actually purchased from Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing topics a tad - To me, this superficially resembles the threat of eminent domain that we landowners face in the US.
The consumer paid for something, and another entity is legally entitled to force the consumer to sell it back.I guess, then, that what is at the heart of the issue is what you actually purchased from Amazon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738985</id>
	<title>Of all books</title>
	<author>giorgist</author>
	<datestamp>1247950140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of all books erasing 1984 is such a great choice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of all books erasing 1984 is such a great choice : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of all books erasing 1984 is such a great choice :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737447</id>
	<title>Ironically the Russians have Orwell's works online</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1247841720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.orwell.ru/library/index\_en" title="orwell.ru">Over here are the Russian's versions of George Orwell's works translated into English</a> [orwell.ru] and as far as I know the Russians licensed the texts from various estates in 2004 and set up this web site.</p><p>The books can be download in RTF, HTML, and Text formats, no PDFs that I know of.</p><p>In Russia the copyrights are different because it is a different set of laws. <a href="http://www.orwell.ru/info/index\_en" title="orwell.ru">This is the web page on the copyright etc</a> [orwell.ru] and <a href="http://www.orwell.ru/info/(c)en" title="orwell.ru">this page says for educational and non-commercial use only</a> [orwell.ru]. So I guess you cannot republish the works, but you can read them from the web site as long as it is educational and for non-commercial use only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over here are the Russian 's versions of George Orwell 's works translated into English [ orwell.ru ] and as far as I know the Russians licensed the texts from various estates in 2004 and set up this web site.The books can be download in RTF , HTML , and Text formats , no PDFs that I know of.In Russia the copyrights are different because it is a different set of laws .
This is the web page on the copyright etc [ orwell.ru ] and this page says for educational and non-commercial use only [ orwell.ru ] .
So I guess you can not republish the works , but you can read them from the web site as long as it is educational and for non-commercial use only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over here are the Russian's versions of George Orwell's works translated into English [orwell.ru] and as far as I know the Russians licensed the texts from various estates in 2004 and set up this web site.The books can be download in RTF, HTML, and Text formats, no PDFs that I know of.In Russia the copyrights are different because it is a different set of laws.
This is the web page on the copyright etc [orwell.ru] and this page says for educational and non-commercial use only [orwell.ru].
So I guess you cannot republish the works, but you can read them from the web site as long as it is educational and for non-commercial use only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742787</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1247948640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if it was first published in the UK, then by the US copyright law in effect at the time it wasn't entitled to ANY copyright in the US.</p><p>Was it?  I think so.</p><p>P.S.:  That law wasn't specifically aimed at Britain.  If it was first published anywhere but the US, the US copyright law of the time didn't recognize that it had any copyright.  That was why both Ace and Ballentine were able to print LOTR.  And Ace didn't pay Tolkien any royalties.  Ballentine advertised on the back cover they they were paying royalties, so you should buy their version instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if it was first published in the UK , then by the US copyright law in effect at the time it was n't entitled to ANY copyright in the US.Was it ?
I think so.P.S .
: That law was n't specifically aimed at Britain .
If it was first published anywhere but the US , the US copyright law of the time did n't recognize that it had any copyright .
That was why both Ace and Ballentine were able to print LOTR .
And Ace did n't pay Tolkien any royalties .
Ballentine advertised on the back cover they they were paying royalties , so you should buy their version instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if it was first published in the UK, then by the US copyright law in effect at the time it wasn't entitled to ANY copyright in the US.Was it?
I think so.P.S.
:  That law wasn't specifically aimed at Britain.
If it was first published anywhere but the US, the US copyright law of the time didn't recognize that it had any copyright.
That was why both Ace and Ballentine were able to print LOTR.
And Ace didn't pay Tolkien any royalties.
Ballentine advertised on the back cover they they were paying royalties, so you should buy their version instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736967</id>
	<title>UPDATE: They're sorry, and they promise not ...</title>
	<author>jra</author>
	<datestamp>1247837700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to do it again:</p><p>http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal\_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to do it again : http : //www.informationweek.com/news/personal \ _tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml ? articleID = 218501227</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to do it again:http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal\_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740447</id>
	<title>In their words...</title>
	<author>theendlessnow</author>
	<datestamp>1247929320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When asked about the pull of the books, they replied, "Pulling the titles seemed double-plus-good."</htmltext>
<tokenext>When asked about the pull of the books , they replied , " Pulling the titles seemed double-plus-good .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When asked about the pull of the books, they replied, "Pulling the titles seemed double-plus-good.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738491</id>
	<title>Perfectly legal</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1247855640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>They did not BUY the book, they PAID for a CONTRACT for a SERVICE</b>. This Service ioncluded them being able to read Animal Farms and 1984, and could be revoked any time. In other word, they rented something, and the contract said they could stop being offered that something at ANY time. THIS is the future eBook want to offer. And people says I am crazy to think this is not the future I want. I loan my book , I buy my book, I don't *RENT* them to lose them at the fucking free will of some corporate drone on the other side of the earth. The only eBook I would ever want are the one without DRM. (creative content?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did not BUY the book , they PAID for a CONTRACT for a SERVICE .
This Service ioncluded them being able to read Animal Farms and 1984 , and could be revoked any time .
In other word , they rented something , and the contract said they could stop being offered that something at ANY time .
THIS is the future eBook want to offer .
And people says I am crazy to think this is not the future I want .
I loan my book , I buy my book , I do n't * RENT * them to lose them at the fucking free will of some corporate drone on the other side of the earth .
The only eBook I would ever want are the one without DRM .
( creative content ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did not BUY the book, they PAID for a CONTRACT for a SERVICE.
This Service ioncluded them being able to read Animal Farms and 1984, and could be revoked any time.
In other word, they rented something, and the contract said they could stop being offered that something at ANY time.
THIS is the future eBook want to offer.
And people says I am crazy to think this is not the future I want.
I loan my book , I buy my book, I don't *RENT* them to lose them at the fucking free will of some corporate drone on the other side of the earth.
The only eBook I would ever want are the one without DRM.
(creative content?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28778237</id>
	<title>privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248196080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tresspassing argument here raises another interesting question: Can they also scan what you got on your kindle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tresspassing argument here raises another interesting question : Can they also scan what you got on your kindle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tresspassing argument here raises another interesting question: Can they also scan what you got on your kindle?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057</id>
	<title>Forced to download edits to books</title>
	<author>digitalderbs</author>
	<datestamp>1247831820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was quite surprised when an automatic update for a copy of the Stand (Stephen King) was pushed onto me, without my consent and without notification as to what had changed. Backup copies aren't hard to make. But who owns the copy? Does Amazon own my Kindle? Do I not have a right to refuse an update?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was quite surprised when an automatic update for a copy of the Stand ( Stephen King ) was pushed onto me , without my consent and without notification as to what had changed .
Backup copies are n't hard to make .
But who owns the copy ?
Does Amazon own my Kindle ?
Do I not have a right to refuse an update ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was quite surprised when an automatic update for a copy of the Stand (Stephen King) was pushed onto me, without my consent and without notification as to what had changed.
Backup copies aren't hard to make.
But who owns the copy?
Does Amazon own my Kindle?
Do I not have a right to refuse an update?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736723</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is called THEFT... call the police or at least contact the EFF for some class action. Maybe even conspiracy to steal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is called THEFT... call the police or at least contact the EFF for some class action .
Maybe even conspiracy to steal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is called THEFT... call the police or at least contact the EFF for some class action.
Maybe even conspiracy to steal!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737139</id>
	<title>Wat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait.  This is something you already paid for and downloaded.  How can they "pull" it from your own device?  Is this more of that DRM bullshit where a company dictates how long a piece of code stays on your device with constant monitoring?  If so, please, by all means, boycott the hell out of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait .
This is something you already paid for and downloaded .
How can they " pull " it from your own device ?
Is this more of that DRM bullshit where a company dictates how long a piece of code stays on your device with constant monitoring ?
If so , please , by all means , boycott the hell out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.
This is something you already paid for and downloaded.
How can they "pull" it from your own device?
Is this more of that DRM bullshit where a company dictates how long a piece of code stays on your device with constant monitoring?
If so, please, by all means, boycott the hell out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737861</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247846160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1984 and Animal Farm are, through the usual idiocy, under copyright in the US but not in other countries, so someone re-publishing the text without paying the copyright licensing is breaking the law</i></p><p>It would be legal for an Australian company to print copies of 1984, right?  And then it would be legal for me to import that book, right?  That's completely legal.  How does it become illegal when electrons are involved?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1984 and Animal Farm are , through the usual idiocy , under copyright in the US but not in other countries , so someone re-publishing the text without paying the copyright licensing is breaking the lawIt would be legal for an Australian company to print copies of 1984 , right ?
And then it would be legal for me to import that book , right ?
That 's completely legal .
How does it become illegal when electrons are involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1984 and Animal Farm are, through the usual idiocy, under copyright in the US but not in other countries, so someone re-publishing the text without paying the copyright licensing is breaking the lawIt would be legal for an Australian company to print copies of 1984, right?
And then it would be legal for me to import that book, right?
That's completely legal.
How does it become illegal when electrons are involved?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736149</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You <strong>bought</strong> and paid for something.</p> </div><p>You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.<br>The word you are looking for is LICENSED.</p><p>Though Amazon's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&amp;nodeId=200144530#content" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">terms of use</a> [amazon.com] are kind of ambiguous (suprised?)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Use of Digital Content:<br>
&nbsp; Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, <strong>Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times,</strong> solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. <strong>Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon</strong> under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You bought and paid for something .
You keep using that word , I do not think it means what you think it means.The word you are looking for is LICENSED.Though Amazon 's terms of use [ amazon.com ] are kind of ambiguous ( suprised ?
) Use of Digital Content :   Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon , Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view , use , and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times , solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal , non-commercial use .
Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bought and paid for something.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.The word you are looking for is LICENSED.Though Amazon's terms of use [amazon.com] are kind of ambiguous (suprised?
)Use of Digital Content:
  Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use.
Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736135</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This seems extremely shady legally. You bought and paid for something</p></div><p>Well probably <i>technically</i> you didn't buy it.  Generally when you "buy" online content, you're not really buying anything.  You're paying a licensing fee, and the terms of the license include "we can pull the content and rescind your license whenever we want without an explanation."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems extremely shady legally .
You bought and paid for somethingWell probably technically you did n't buy it .
Generally when you " buy " online content , you 're not really buying anything .
You 're paying a licensing fee , and the terms of the license include " we can pull the content and rescind your license whenever we want without an explanation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems extremely shady legally.
You bought and paid for somethingWell probably technically you didn't buy it.
Generally when you "buy" online content, you're not really buying anything.
You're paying a licensing fee, and the terms of the license include "we can pull the content and rescind your license whenever we want without an explanation.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736641</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle has a remote kill feature?</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1247835420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPod doesn't have a permanent Internet connection like the kindle -so no. iTunes, on the other hand, is entirely proprietary, links with their web service, and uses their own proprietary DRM technology on (some of?) their music, so it's a foregone conclusion that *eventually* you will not be able to play those songs -it's just a matter of time. The mp3 downloads, on the other hand, can be backed up out of reach of iTunes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPod does n't have a permanent Internet connection like the kindle -so no .
iTunes , on the other hand , is entirely proprietary , links with their web service , and uses their own proprietary DRM technology on ( some of ?
) their music , so it 's a foregone conclusion that * eventually * you will not be able to play those songs -it 's just a matter of time .
The mp3 downloads , on the other hand , can be backed up out of reach of iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPod doesn't have a permanent Internet connection like the kindle -so no.
iTunes, on the other hand, is entirely proprietary, links with their web service, and uses their own proprietary DRM technology on (some of?
) their music, so it's a foregone conclusion that *eventually* you will not be able to play those songs -it's just a matter of time.
The mp3 downloads, on the other hand, can be backed up out of reach of iTunes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736401</id>
	<title>Re:Forced to download edits to books</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1247833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, they just want to keep you safe.<br> <br>

I'm sure it was a critical security update.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they just want to keep you safe .
I 'm sure it was a critical security update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they just want to keep you safe.
I'm sure it was a critical security update.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736895</id>
	<title>Harmony</title>
	<author>PhotoGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247837220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have bought copies of both books in my (distant) past.</p><p>Recently, I "found" electronic copies of them, and re-read them, enjoying them very much, more so than when I first purchased them.  I read them on a free reader on two different handheld devices (one Windows CE; ugh, but it's my phone, too, so meh), and one Linux based (cooler, but blah, it's not my phone).</p><p>Nobody revoked anything on me.  Nobody took away my right to read.  Nobody took away my license to read these books that I purchased awhile back.  Nobody could, because it was through "unauthorized" channels.  But I bought the damn book.  And here in Canada, even borrowing the book/record/game gives you permission to copy it for yourself for personal use.</p><p>Most consumers wouldn't know how to do what I did, and that's sad.</p><p>I'll never buy into DRM.</p><p>Also, I've gotten HDTV through less than legit means, while simultaneously paying for full subscription.  (If I used that subscription purely, I'd be forced to do the D-to-A-to-D route, blah).  But I get my HDTV, for personal use, recordable, copyable, save-able, pure.  Through unauthorized means.  I'm supposedly legally allowed to, but not permitted to actually do so, as a non-informed consumer.</p><p>In general, the producers need to know that their content isn't *that* valuable or *that* essential to people's lives.  It's not freakin' oxygen.  But if the masses want to toss you a few bucks each for unrestricted access to it (which I would), you should accept it, and you'll be rich.  Richer than astronauts (as Homer would say).</p><p>But you keep trying to deny me something I bought, and you wont't survive.  I can guarantee that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have bought copies of both books in my ( distant ) past.Recently , I " found " electronic copies of them , and re-read them , enjoying them very much , more so than when I first purchased them .
I read them on a free reader on two different handheld devices ( one Windows CE ; ugh , but it 's my phone , too , so meh ) , and one Linux based ( cooler , but blah , it 's not my phone ) .Nobody revoked anything on me .
Nobody took away my right to read .
Nobody took away my license to read these books that I purchased awhile back .
Nobody could , because it was through " unauthorized " channels .
But I bought the damn book .
And here in Canada , even borrowing the book/record/game gives you permission to copy it for yourself for personal use.Most consumers would n't know how to do what I did , and that 's sad.I 'll never buy into DRM.Also , I 've gotten HDTV through less than legit means , while simultaneously paying for full subscription .
( If I used that subscription purely , I 'd be forced to do the D-to-A-to-D route , blah ) .
But I get my HDTV , for personal use , recordable , copyable , save-able , pure .
Through unauthorized means .
I 'm supposedly legally allowed to , but not permitted to actually do so , as a non-informed consumer.In general , the producers need to know that their content is n't * that * valuable or * that * essential to people 's lives .
It 's not freakin ' oxygen .
But if the masses want to toss you a few bucks each for unrestricted access to it ( which I would ) , you should accept it , and you 'll be rich .
Richer than astronauts ( as Homer would say ) .But you keep trying to deny me something I bought , and you wont't survive .
I can guarantee that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have bought copies of both books in my (distant) past.Recently, I "found" electronic copies of them, and re-read them, enjoying them very much, more so than when I first purchased them.
I read them on a free reader on two different handheld devices (one Windows CE; ugh, but it's my phone, too, so meh), and one Linux based (cooler, but blah, it's not my phone).Nobody revoked anything on me.
Nobody took away my right to read.
Nobody took away my license to read these books that I purchased awhile back.
Nobody could, because it was through "unauthorized" channels.
But I bought the damn book.
And here in Canada, even borrowing the book/record/game gives you permission to copy it for yourself for personal use.Most consumers wouldn't know how to do what I did, and that's sad.I'll never buy into DRM.Also, I've gotten HDTV through less than legit means, while simultaneously paying for full subscription.
(If I used that subscription purely, I'd be forced to do the D-to-A-to-D route, blah).
But I get my HDTV, for personal use, recordable, copyable, save-able, pure.
Through unauthorized means.
I'm supposedly legally allowed to, but not permitted to actually do so, as a non-informed consumer.In general, the producers need to know that their content isn't *that* valuable or *that* essential to people's lives.
It's not freakin' oxygen.
But if the masses want to toss you a few bucks each for unrestricted access to it (which I would), you should accept it, and you'll be rich.
Richer than astronauts (as Homer would say).But you keep trying to deny me something I bought, and you wont't survive.
I can guarantee that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736471</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247834220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once it was discovered, Amazon should refund the end customers (which it has done in this case) and then take up action against me.</p></div><p>Amazon should <em>offer refunds</em> to the end customers, but I'd take up arms if they tried to sneak in at night.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once it was discovered , Amazon should refund the end customers ( which it has done in this case ) and then take up action against me.Amazon should offer refunds to the end customers , but I 'd take up arms if they tried to sneak in at night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once it was discovered, Amazon should refund the end customers (which it has done in this case) and then take up action against me.Amazon should offer refunds to the end customers, but I'd take up arms if they tried to sneak in at night.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736563</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>synthesizerpatel</author>
	<datestamp>1247834880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, if something is in the public domain, anyone can sell it, show it, remake it, etc. This is why you see 'It's a wonderful life' on every channel during Christmas. So it's not that they don't have the right, it's that anyone could/can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , if something is in the public domain , anyone can sell it , show it , remake it , etc .
This is why you see 'It 's a wonderful life ' on every channel during Christmas .
So it 's not that they do n't have the right , it 's that anyone could/can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, if something is in the public domain, anyone can sell it, show it, remake it, etc.
This is why you see 'It's a wonderful life' on every channel during Christmas.
So it's not that they don't have the right, it's that anyone could/can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742429</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Stray7Xi</author>
	<datestamp>1247945760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comrade, post is oldspeakful near-crimespeak, provided resub:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is another badful aspect that is crimestopped, it is double-plus-ironyful regarding unbook.</p><p>Minitrue can rectify misprint by removing and replacing with goodbook.  All books can be rectified double-plus-speedwise when misprints are identified.</p><p>We are at war with Eurasia.  We've always been at war with Eurasia.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Comrade , post is oldspeakful near-crimespeak , provided resub : There is another badful aspect that is crimestopped , it is double-plus-ironyful regarding unbook.Minitrue can rectify misprint by removing and replacing with goodbook .
All books can be rectified double-plus-speedwise when misprints are identified.We are at war with Eurasia .
We 've always been at war with Eurasia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comrade, post is oldspeakful near-crimespeak, provided resub:There is another badful aspect that is crimestopped, it is double-plus-ironyful regarding unbook.Minitrue can rectify misprint by removing and replacing with goodbook.
All books can be rectified double-plus-speedwise when misprints are identified.We are at war with Eurasia.
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736235</id>
	<title>Re:The author has been dead for 60 years!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, this?:</p><p><a href="http://www.george-orwellrg/1984/index.html" title="www.george-orwellrg" rel="nofollow">http://www.george-orwellrg/1984/index.html</a> [www.george-orwellrg]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , this ?
: http : //www.george-orwellrg/1984/index.html [ www.george-orwellrg ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, this?
:http://www.george-orwellrg/1984/index.html [www.george-orwellrg]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738017</id>
	<title>not a fair spin on the story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247848200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"business lives and dies by publisher happiness"</p><p>More like we didn't want publishers to sue us for violating their copyright. It is cheaper to give customers a bunch of goodies when they call and complain than to settle on a copyright infringement lawsuit or on terms of a business contract.</p><p>Many publishers generally do what we say because we point at the numbers and say "look here, see how you're making a ton of money. well we're the reason why." But publishers are a fickle bunch and can be very paranoid about disrupting their business, they are so risk adverse as to create risk by not adapting to the new marketplace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" business lives and dies by publisher happiness " More like we did n't want publishers to sue us for violating their copyright .
It is cheaper to give customers a bunch of goodies when they call and complain than to settle on a copyright infringement lawsuit or on terms of a business contract.Many publishers generally do what we say because we point at the numbers and say " look here , see how you 're making a ton of money .
well we 're the reason why .
" But publishers are a fickle bunch and can be very paranoid about disrupting their business , they are so risk adverse as to create risk by not adapting to the new marketplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"business lives and dies by publisher happiness"More like we didn't want publishers to sue us for violating their copyright.
It is cheaper to give customers a bunch of goodies when they call and complain than to settle on a copyright infringement lawsuit or on terms of a business contract.Many publishers generally do what we say because we point at the numbers and say "look here, see how you're making a ton of money.
well we're the reason why.
" But publishers are a fickle bunch and can be very paranoid about disrupting their business, they are so risk adverse as to create risk by not adapting to the new marketplace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737399</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>blackest\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1247841300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2) Pretty much by owning a kindle your in the united states or your credit card is.</p><p>3)now that Amazon have displayed just how much control they have over the kindle and ebooks that you buy, who's going to want to buy into that platform.</p><p>Chances are the product we want hasn't been released yet, the EEE tablet story a few days ago had quite a few links to an Arm processor tablet where the screen is removable giving a tablet or netbook experience.</p><p>This seems ripe for further development, maybe with a drop in epaper screen or perhaps a screen module with epaper one side and lcd panel on the other, if it was double sided i'd like to have a clear removable cover to protect the outer screen from scratching and damage.</p><p>Might as well go one step further and include a hspda modem which supports voice calls. Paired up with a bluetooth headset or in car bluetooth audio system.</p><p>why not be really extreme and include gps and of course it would run Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>The E-paper Screen would probably be sufficiently responsive to handle browsing sites like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and relatively slow input such as typing.</p><p>Battery life could be quite impressive when it needs to be.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Pretty much by owning a kindle your in the united states or your credit card is.3 ) now that Amazon have displayed just how much control they have over the kindle and ebooks that you buy , who 's going to want to buy into that platform.Chances are the product we want has n't been released yet , the EEE tablet story a few days ago had quite a few links to an Arm processor tablet where the screen is removable giving a tablet or netbook experience.This seems ripe for further development , maybe with a drop in epaper screen or perhaps a screen module with epaper one side and lcd panel on the other , if it was double sided i 'd like to have a clear removable cover to protect the outer screen from scratching and damage.Might as well go one step further and include a hspda modem which supports voice calls .
Paired up with a bluetooth headset or in car bluetooth audio system.why not be really extreme and include gps and of course it would run Linux : ) The E-paper Screen would probably be sufficiently responsive to handle browsing sites like / .
and relatively slow input such as typing.Battery life could be quite impressive when it needs to be .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Pretty much by owning a kindle your in the united states or your credit card is.3)now that Amazon have displayed just how much control they have over the kindle and ebooks that you buy, who's going to want to buy into that platform.Chances are the product we want hasn't been released yet, the EEE tablet story a few days ago had quite a few links to an Arm processor tablet where the screen is removable giving a tablet or netbook experience.This seems ripe for further development, maybe with a drop in epaper screen or perhaps a screen module with epaper one side and lcd panel on the other, if it was double sided i'd like to have a clear removable cover to protect the outer screen from scratching and damage.Might as well go one step further and include a hspda modem which supports voice calls.
Paired up with a bluetooth headset or in car bluetooth audio system.why not be really extreme and include gps and of course it would run Linux :)The E-paper Screen would probably be sufficiently responsive to handle browsing sites like /.
and relatively slow input such as typing.Battery life could be quite impressive when it needs to be.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736221</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1247832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I've never read the fine print on a kindle....then again I doubt many Kindle owners have either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 've never read the fine print on a kindle....then again I doubt many Kindle owners have either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I've never read the fine print on a kindle....then again I doubt many Kindle owners have either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738703</id>
	<title>Available online, for free, and without DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247859600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just in case it hasn't been mentioned here, the complete works of Orwell are available online for free in html, pdf, ms word, and txt files.  Just google for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just in case it has n't been mentioned here , the complete works of Orwell are available online for free in html , pdf , ms word , and txt files .
Just google for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just in case it hasn't been mentioned here, the complete works of Orwell are available online for free in html, pdf, ms word, and txt files.
Just google for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736179</id>
	<title>Amazon's new product</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1247832540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your books are now 'unbooks'. They don't exist. They never existed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your books are now 'unbooks' .
They do n't exist .
They never existed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your books are now 'unbooks'.
They don't exist.
They never existed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737259</id>
	<title>Here is what I know...</title>
	<author>krbvroc1</author>
	<datestamp>1247840160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From reading the various comments, it appears that someone illegally sold the books in question using the<br>Amazon 'self-publishing' feature. In other words, Amazon had no right to sell the book in the first place.</p><p>Amazon certainly failed in its responsibility to ensure it was only selling things it was entitled too. And Amazon has yet to clearly state that this is what actually happened.</p><p>But I think the respresentations in the media so far is that the publisher of Orwells books changed their mind, which does not appear to be the case. If that happened, people who had purchased the book already would still have their purchase. Rather, in this case, Amazon sold 'stolen merchandise', and the technology behind the Kindle allows recourse unlike a physical book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading the various comments , it appears that someone illegally sold the books in question using theAmazon 'self-publishing ' feature .
In other words , Amazon had no right to sell the book in the first place.Amazon certainly failed in its responsibility to ensure it was only selling things it was entitled too .
And Amazon has yet to clearly state that this is what actually happened.But I think the respresentations in the media so far is that the publisher of Orwells books changed their mind , which does not appear to be the case .
If that happened , people who had purchased the book already would still have their purchase .
Rather , in this case , Amazon sold 'stolen merchandise ' , and the technology behind the Kindle allows recourse unlike a physical book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading the various comments, it appears that someone illegally sold the books in question using theAmazon 'self-publishing' feature.
In other words, Amazon had no right to sell the book in the first place.Amazon certainly failed in its responsibility to ensure it was only selling things it was entitled too.
And Amazon has yet to clearly state that this is what actually happened.But I think the respresentations in the media so far is that the publisher of Orwells books changed their mind, which does not appear to be the case.
If that happened, people who had purchased the book already would still have their purchase.
Rather, in this case, Amazon sold 'stolen merchandise', and the technology behind the Kindle allows recourse unlike a physical book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28745579</id>
	<title>Re:Digital Smoke Screen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247938620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially interesting if you buy a book which then increases in value.  Say, if the author dies.  Can they recall that book, and force you to re-buy it at a higher price if you want to keep it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially interesting if you buy a book which then increases in value .
Say , if the author dies .
Can they recall that book , and force you to re-buy it at a higher price if you want to keep it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially interesting if you buy a book which then increases in value.
Say, if the author dies.
Can they recall that book, and force you to re-buy it at a higher price if you want to keep it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28747075</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1248009900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ANNND, any signficiant edits work of 1984 would have created a new derivitive work, with a whole new copyright.</p></div><p>I am looking forward to Amazon's digitally remastered edition of that book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ANNND , any signficiant edits work of 1984 would have created a new derivitive work , with a whole new copyright.I am looking forward to Amazon 's digitally remastered edition of that book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ANNND, any signficiant edits work of 1984 would have created a new derivitive work, with a whole new copyright.I am looking forward to Amazon's digitally remastered edition of that book.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737721</id>
	<title>Re:suckers</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247844420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And land lines! Who needs them when we have such fickle and expensive cell phone service with far less coverage!</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Depends on how long a phone extension cable you have for your land line. I've never found more than a few hundred feet...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And land lines !
Who needs them when we have such fickle and expensive cell phone service with far less coverage !
Depends on how long a phone extension cable you have for your land line .
I 've never found more than a few hundred feet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And land lines!
Who needs them when we have such fickle and expensive cell phone service with far less coverage!
Depends on how long a phone extension cable you have for your land line.
I've never found more than a few hundred feet...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737429</id>
	<title>This is theft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon and the publishers have just stolen from the customers. I'm not saying the customers didn't ask for it, because they were the ones dumb enough to buy a device that allows "take-back-zies on the part of the seller.</p><p>I would be stupid to buy a car that can drive its self back to the dealer at their (remote) command, and I would be stupid to buy a digital product that can be remotely deactivated.</p><p>Somebody really needs to sue them for this, but people in this country typically let corporations walk all over them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon and the publishers have just stolen from the customers .
I 'm not saying the customers did n't ask for it , because they were the ones dumb enough to buy a device that allows " take-back-zies on the part of the seller.I would be stupid to buy a car that can drive its self back to the dealer at their ( remote ) command , and I would be stupid to buy a digital product that can be remotely deactivated.Somebody really needs to sue them for this , but people in this country typically let corporations walk all over them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon and the publishers have just stolen from the customers.
I'm not saying the customers didn't ask for it, because they were the ones dumb enough to buy a device that allows "take-back-zies on the part of the seller.I would be stupid to buy a car that can drive its self back to the dealer at their (remote) command, and I would be stupid to buy a digital product that can be remotely deactivated.Somebody really needs to sue them for this, but people in this country typically let corporations walk all over them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740041</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>ToddlerArmyofOne</author>
	<datestamp>1247925240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>US law=UK law=worldwide copyright laws.  The copyright laws are more or less the same all over the world since most countries (=all countries you have heard of) have signed the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The US signed this convention much later than all western countries, and therefore Orwells estate should be protected a long time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>US law = UK law = worldwide copyright laws .
The copyright laws are more or less the same all over the world since most countries ( = all countries you have heard of ) have signed the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works .
The US signed this convention much later than all western countries , and therefore Orwells estate should be protected a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US law=UK law=worldwide copyright laws.
The copyright laws are more or less the same all over the world since most countries (=all countries you have heard of) have signed the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
The US signed this convention much later than all western countries, and therefore Orwells estate should be protected a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Techmeology</author>
	<datestamp>1247833740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead coming to get me, wget <a href="http://www.desy.de/gna/html/cc/Tutorial/tutorial.html" title="www.desy.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.desy.de/gna/html/cc/Tutorial/tutorial.html</a> [www.desy.de] and <a href="http://www.asiaing.com/animal-farm-by-george-orwell.html" title="asiaing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.asiaing.com/animal-farm-by-george-orwell.html</a> [asiaing.com]
I'm no legal expert (I gave up on trying to understand the law), but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired (well, I think they have anyway). Even if they weren't if Amazon and publishers will do things like this, then they deserve all the piracy they wget!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead coming to get me , wget http : //www.desy.de/gna/html/cc/Tutorial/tutorial.html [ www.desy.de ] and http : //www.asiaing.com/animal-farm-by-george-orwell.html [ asiaing.com ] I 'm no legal expert ( I gave up on trying to understand the law ) , but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired ( well , I think they have anyway ) .
Even if they were n't if Amazon and publishers will do things like this , then they deserve all the piracy they wget !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead coming to get me, wget http://www.desy.de/gna/html/cc/Tutorial/tutorial.html [www.desy.de] and http://www.asiaing.com/animal-farm-by-george-orwell.html [asiaing.com]
I'm no legal expert (I gave up on trying to understand the law), but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired (well, I think they have anyway).
Even if they weren't if Amazon and publishers will do things like this, then they deserve all the piracy they wget!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739381</id>
	<title>This Does Not Bode Well</title>
	<author>Gerhardius</author>
	<datestamp>1247913600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was given a Kindle I found it interesting but not truly captivating. I found myself far more concerned with what electronic book distribution means long term and it was not a cheery vision. Governments will find it far easier to control the acquisition and distribution of knowledge in a society where print is inherently subversive. When books can be pulled at will we are in serious danger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was given a Kindle I found it interesting but not truly captivating .
I found myself far more concerned with what electronic book distribution means long term and it was not a cheery vision .
Governments will find it far easier to control the acquisition and distribution of knowledge in a society where print is inherently subversive .
When books can be pulled at will we are in serious danger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was given a Kindle I found it interesting but not truly captivating.
I found myself far more concerned with what electronic book distribution means long term and it was not a cheery vision.
Governments will find it far easier to control the acquisition and distribution of knowledge in a society where print is inherently subversive.
When books can be pulled at will we are in serious danger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740143</id>
	<title>Bad,bad,bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247926440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate forced recalls. Companies should not be able to reach into our computers and do things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate forced recalls .
Companies should not be able to reach into our computers and do things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate forced recalls.
Companies should not be able to reach into our computers and do things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736187</id>
	<title>So that cuts it.  I'll not buy a Kindle.</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1247832600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought about buying one on and off.  But now that I've learned Amazon doesn't respect its customers purchased property, forget about it.</p><p>This kind of thing will Doom the Kindle out of the mainstream.  Who wants to buy something that could at any moment, and without warning disappear?  Nobody likes things they thought were tangible suddenly becoming intangible.  It's the same reason the original Circuit-City DIVX scheme never took off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought about buying one on and off .
But now that I 've learned Amazon does n't respect its customers purchased property , forget about it.This kind of thing will Doom the Kindle out of the mainstream .
Who wants to buy something that could at any moment , and without warning disappear ?
Nobody likes things they thought were tangible suddenly becoming intangible .
It 's the same reason the original Circuit-City DIVX scheme never took off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought about buying one on and off.
But now that I've learned Amazon doesn't respect its customers purchased property, forget about it.This kind of thing will Doom the Kindle out of the mainstream.
Who wants to buy something that could at any moment, and without warning disappear?
Nobody likes things they thought were tangible suddenly becoming intangible.
It's the same reason the original Circuit-City DIVX scheme never took off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744933</id>
	<title>Another twist.</title>
	<author>xigxag</author>
	<datestamp>1247929500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that if Amazon can permanently delete an item from your Kindle, then there is no further argument that can be made against digital resales.</p><p>A Kindle user should have the ability to give away/resell the license to another user, thereupon permanently deleting their own access rights. Said transfer would work effectively the same way a paper book resale would work.  What's more, their US customers should demand this first sale right that they've been illegally deprived of.  Just as an ordinary bookseller does not have the legal right to prevent you from reselling a book, regardless of any contract they impose upon you, Amazon should not have this right. Especially since they have demonstrated through this gaffe that a transfer can be cleanly effectuated.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that if Amazon can permanently delete an item from your Kindle , then there is no further argument that can be made against digital resales.A Kindle user should have the ability to give away/resell the license to another user , thereupon permanently deleting their own access rights .
Said transfer would work effectively the same way a paper book resale would work .
What 's more , their US customers should demand this first sale right that they 've been illegally deprived of .
Just as an ordinary bookseller does not have the legal right to prevent you from reselling a book , regardless of any contract they impose upon you , Amazon should not have this right .
Especially since they have demonstrated through this gaffe that a transfer can be cleanly effectuated .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that if Amazon can permanently delete an item from your Kindle, then there is no further argument that can be made against digital resales.A Kindle user should have the ability to give away/resell the license to another user, thereupon permanently deleting their own access rights.
Said transfer would work effectively the same way a paper book resale would work.
What's more, their US customers should demand this first sale right that they've been illegally deprived of.
Just as an ordinary bookseller does not have the legal right to prevent you from reselling a book, regardless of any contract they impose upon you, Amazon should not have this right.
Especially since they have demonstrated through this gaffe that a transfer can be cleanly effectuated.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736613</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247835240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um... NO!</p><p>If I buy something, and it's recalled (obviously we're not talking about food or other perishables) it's mine.  It's been sold.  Except where it's stolen or other specific cases, it can't be reposessed from me.  A book that was printed without permission?  Cops aren't coming to my door to get it back.  It's mine.  The problem, and why it's absolutely NOT ok is that with DRM and remote kill options you can take it back, which by some views is or should be completely illegal.</p><p>There are so many vague laws surrounding virtual items that the waters are cloudy on a good day.  If you take a CD it's stealing, if you copy an MP3 it's copyright infringement (because you can't "take" it, only "copy" it).  Same w/ books, but when you *buy* something you have ownership of it.  Media companies want to maintain ownership and only sell you "licences" which can be revoked at any time.  This is where it becomes a slippery slope.  Take a page (real or virtual) from one of the books from the article.  Want to suppress info?  You don't need to "burn books" anymore, just a system wide revoke and delete.  Done!</p><p>It seems like a paranoid point of view, and that the slippery slope is still on the other side of the field, and you might say, "oh, well I understand their reasoning", fine, but they still shouldn't have the *ability* to have done it.  That's the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... NO ! If I buy something , and it 's recalled ( obviously we 're not talking about food or other perishables ) it 's mine .
It 's been sold .
Except where it 's stolen or other specific cases , it ca n't be reposessed from me .
A book that was printed without permission ?
Cops are n't coming to my door to get it back .
It 's mine .
The problem , and why it 's absolutely NOT ok is that with DRM and remote kill options you can take it back , which by some views is or should be completely illegal.There are so many vague laws surrounding virtual items that the waters are cloudy on a good day .
If you take a CD it 's stealing , if you copy an MP3 it 's copyright infringement ( because you ca n't " take " it , only " copy " it ) .
Same w/ books , but when you * buy * something you have ownership of it .
Media companies want to maintain ownership and only sell you " licences " which can be revoked at any time .
This is where it becomes a slippery slope .
Take a page ( real or virtual ) from one of the books from the article .
Want to suppress info ?
You do n't need to " burn books " anymore , just a system wide revoke and delete .
Done ! It seems like a paranoid point of view , and that the slippery slope is still on the other side of the field , and you might say , " oh , well I understand their reasoning " , fine , but they still should n't have the * ability * to have done it .
That 's the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... NO!If I buy something, and it's recalled (obviously we're not talking about food or other perishables) it's mine.
It's been sold.
Except where it's stolen or other specific cases, it can't be reposessed from me.
A book that was printed without permission?
Cops aren't coming to my door to get it back.
It's mine.
The problem, and why it's absolutely NOT ok is that with DRM and remote kill options you can take it back, which by some views is or should be completely illegal.There are so many vague laws surrounding virtual items that the waters are cloudy on a good day.
If you take a CD it's stealing, if you copy an MP3 it's copyright infringement (because you can't "take" it, only "copy" it).
Same w/ books, but when you *buy* something you have ownership of it.
Media companies want to maintain ownership and only sell you "licences" which can be revoked at any time.
This is where it becomes a slippery slope.
Take a page (real or virtual) from one of the books from the article.
Want to suppress info?
You don't need to "burn books" anymore, just a system wide revoke and delete.
Done!It seems like a paranoid point of view, and that the slippery slope is still on the other side of the field, and you might say, "oh, well I understand their reasoning", fine, but they still shouldn't have the *ability* to have done it.
That's the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736107</id>
	<title>The Prime Reason Why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll never buy a Kindle. When Amazon pulls this shit they're depriving a customer of their license to view the book. The customer now has a grievance against Amazon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll never buy a Kindle .
When Amazon pulls this shit they 're depriving a customer of their license to view the book .
The customer now has a grievance against Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll never buy a Kindle.
When Amazon pulls this shit they're depriving a customer of their license to view the book.
The customer now has a grievance against Amazon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738509</id>
	<title>Re:suckers</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247856000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that there are plenty of alternatives to Kindle that don't have an always-on network connections, and thus you don't need to worry about that kind of crap, right? iRex Iliad (and whatever their new reader is called) and Sony PRS are two good ones, but there are more. And you can stuff them with text files from Project Gutenberg, and be sure there's no DRM anywhere near; and still get all convenience of an eInk e-book reader (and yes, it is convenient).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that there are plenty of alternatives to Kindle that do n't have an always-on network connections , and thus you do n't need to worry about that kind of crap , right ?
iRex Iliad ( and whatever their new reader is called ) and Sony PRS are two good ones , but there are more .
And you can stuff them with text files from Project Gutenberg , and be sure there 's no DRM anywhere near ; and still get all convenience of an eInk e-book reader ( and yes , it is convenient ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that there are plenty of alternatives to Kindle that don't have an always-on network connections, and thus you don't need to worry about that kind of crap, right?
iRex Iliad (and whatever their new reader is called) and Sony PRS are two good ones, but there are more.
And you can stuff them with text files from Project Gutenberg, and be sure there's no DRM anywhere near; and still get all convenience of an eInk e-book reader (and yes, it is convenient).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736095</id>
	<title>Well, suspicion confirmed</title>
	<author>corran\_\_horn</author>
	<datestamp>1247832000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, this at least confirms that Amazon does have absolute power over the Kindle and relegates it to the land of Zune for me.  That, and that iRiver's mp3 player has a text reader as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this at least confirms that Amazon does have absolute power over the Kindle and relegates it to the land of Zune for me .
That , and that iRiver 's mp3 player has a text reader as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this at least confirms that Amazon does have absolute power over the Kindle and relegates it to the land of Zune for me.
That, and that iRiver's mp3 player has a text reader as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901</id>
	<title>Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>acrobg</author>
	<datestamp>1247830860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...must be the complete truth.

Or else the thought police will come get you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...must be the complete truth .
Or else the thought police will come get you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...must be the complete truth.
Or else the thought police will come get you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736081</id>
	<title>Free at Project Gutenberg</title>
	<author>bfmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1247831940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011.txt" title="gutenberg.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011.txt</a> [gutenberg.net.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011.txt [ gutenberg.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011.txt [gutenberg.net.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737011</id>
	<title>What the...</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1247838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They Fahrenheit 451'd Animal Farm and 1984!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They Fahrenheit 451 'd Animal Farm and 1984 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They Fahrenheit 451'd Animal Farm and 1984!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736715</id>
	<title>In a story just dripping with irony...</title>
	<author>Thad Zurich</author>
	<datestamp>1247835900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... netbook owners awoke this morning to discover that Chrome OS had mysteriously disappeared from their netbooks. These were netbooks that they had bought and paid for, and thought they owned. Apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an operating system, and Google, whose business lives and dies by advertiser happiness, electronically deleted all instances of Chrome from people's netbooks and credited their accounts for the price ($0). Microsoft immediately raised the price of netbook client licenses...</htmltext>
<tokenext>... netbook owners awoke this morning to discover that Chrome OS had mysteriously disappeared from their netbooks .
These were netbooks that they had bought and paid for , and thought they owned .
Apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an operating system , and Google , whose business lives and dies by advertiser happiness , electronically deleted all instances of Chrome from people 's netbooks and credited their accounts for the price ( $ 0 ) .
Microsoft immediately raised the price of netbook client licenses.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... netbook owners awoke this morning to discover that Chrome OS had mysteriously disappeared from their netbooks.
These were netbooks that they had bought and paid for, and thought they owned.
Apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an operating system, and Google, whose business lives and dies by advertiser happiness, electronically deleted all instances of Chrome from people's netbooks and credited their accounts for the price ($0).
Microsoft immediately raised the price of netbook client licenses...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736025</id>
	<title>MobileReference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like MobileReference is the publisher.  I think they deserve their fair share of the blame for this as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like MobileReference is the publisher .
I think they deserve their fair share of the blame for this as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like MobileReference is the publisher.
I think they deserve their fair share of the blame for this as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736117</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Punto</author>
	<datestamp>1247832120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they bought the kindle, there was probably a clause on the EULA that said this (and more!) was possible.</p><p>I buy that more than "they got a refund so it's ok". In the "real world", if you buy, for example, a first edition of a rare book, they can't just say "we want it back, here's your money", because it's possible that its value will have increased since the time you purchased it (imagine it's an important book, first edition is rare, etc). I wonder how that argument would translate to this case tho..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they bought the kindle , there was probably a clause on the EULA that said this ( and more !
) was possible.I buy that more than " they got a refund so it 's ok " .
In the " real world " , if you buy , for example , a first edition of a rare book , they ca n't just say " we want it back , here 's your money " , because it 's possible that its value will have increased since the time you purchased it ( imagine it 's an important book , first edition is rare , etc ) .
I wonder how that argument would translate to this case tho. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they bought the kindle, there was probably a clause on the EULA that said this (and more!
) was possible.I buy that more than "they got a refund so it's ok".
In the "real world", if you buy, for example, a first edition of a rare book, they can't just say "we want it back, here's your money", because it's possible that its value will have increased since the time you purchased it (imagine it's an important book, first edition is rare, etc).
I wonder how that argument would translate to this case tho..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28771953</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248200280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electrons are involved in either case, dimwit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electrons are involved in either case , dimwit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electrons are involved in either case, dimwit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247852280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired</p> </div><p>Hmm....</p><p>George Orwell died in 1950.  (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_Orwell" title="wikipedia.org">link</a> [wikipedia.org]), and 1984 was published in 1949.</p><p>The copyright law in effect in the US in 1949 allowed for a 28 "first" term, with a possible 28 year extension. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_copyright\_law" title="wikipedia.org">link</a> [wikipedia.org]).</p><p>The law was changed in 1976, allowing any published work still in its first-term to be extended another 67 years.  Since 1949 + 28 = 1977, Orwell's work was still in its first term, and would not have expired under the original law until 2005 -- or 2053 under the 1976 extension.</p><p>AND, the 1998 Sony Bono copyrgiht extension slapped a flat "life + 75 years" deal, which is kinda a moot point but would still push copyright unil at least 2024.</p><p>ANNND, any signficiant edits work of 1984 would have created a new derivitive work, with a whole new copyright.</p><p>Or in other words--1984 is probably still well covered by copyright, and not technically in the public domain in the United States.</p><p>(Yes, you can find a copy on the internet.  This is the internet, where you can also find anything and everything for free if you look hard enough.)</p><p>(And, yes, I know Orwell was from the UK.  I don't know the UK laws, I don't have a good guide for the UK laws, and as far as I know copyright law on the other side of the pond is still a grant given by the king to a publisher so that a particular work gets published.... so 1984 might never get into the public domain at all.)</p><p>(Not to mention that if it's not in there now, the "Mickey Mouse" effect might keep it from ever getting there.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired Hmm....George Orwell died in 1950 .
( link [ wikipedia.org ] ) , and 1984 was published in 1949.The copyright law in effect in the US in 1949 allowed for a 28 " first " term , with a possible 28 year extension .
( link [ wikipedia.org ] ) .The law was changed in 1976 , allowing any published work still in its first-term to be extended another 67 years .
Since 1949 + 28 = 1977 , Orwell 's work was still in its first term , and would not have expired under the original law until 2005 -- or 2053 under the 1976 extension.AND , the 1998 Sony Bono copyrgiht extension slapped a flat " life + 75 years " deal , which is kinda a moot point but would still push copyright unil at least 2024.ANNND , any signficiant edits work of 1984 would have created a new derivitive work , with a whole new copyright.Or in other words--1984 is probably still well covered by copyright , and not technically in the public domain in the United States .
( Yes , you can find a copy on the internet .
This is the internet , where you can also find anything and everything for free if you look hard enough .
) ( And , yes , I know Orwell was from the UK .
I do n't know the UK laws , I do n't have a good guide for the UK laws , and as far as I know copyright law on the other side of the pond is still a grant given by the king to a publisher so that a particular work gets published.... so 1984 might never get into the public domain at all .
) ( Not to mention that if it 's not in there now , the " Mickey Mouse " effect might keep it from ever getting there .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired Hmm....George Orwell died in 1950.
(link [wikipedia.org]), and 1984 was published in 1949.The copyright law in effect in the US in 1949 allowed for a 28 "first" term, with a possible 28 year extension.
(link [wikipedia.org]).The law was changed in 1976, allowing any published work still in its first-term to be extended another 67 years.
Since 1949 + 28 = 1977, Orwell's work was still in its first term, and would not have expired under the original law until 2005 -- or 2053 under the 1976 extension.AND, the 1998 Sony Bono copyrgiht extension slapped a flat "life + 75 years" deal, which is kinda a moot point but would still push copyright unil at least 2024.ANNND, any signficiant edits work of 1984 would have created a new derivitive work, with a whole new copyright.Or in other words--1984 is probably still well covered by copyright, and not technically in the public domain in the United States.
(Yes, you can find a copy on the internet.
This is the internet, where you can also find anything and everything for free if you look hard enough.
)(And, yes, I know Orwell was from the UK.
I don't know the UK laws, I don't have a good guide for the UK laws, and as far as I know copyright law on the other side of the pond is still a grant given by the king to a publisher so that a particular work gets published.... so 1984 might never get into the public domain at all.
)(Not to mention that if it's not in there now, the "Mickey Mouse" effect might keep it from ever getting there.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661</id>
	<title>Digital Smoke Screen</title>
	<author>chicago\_scott</author>
	<datestamp>1247843940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a pretty amazing story. In the Digital Age a distributor fells that they are allowed to invade an electronic device that you own, steal a copy of digital media that you own and force you to accept a refund for something that YOU own.</p><p>Let's imagine this happened thirty years ago, or even ten years ago for that matter. A book store sells a book to you and for whatever the publisher decides they don't want to sell the book to you and must have it back. The publisher must now trespass onto your property, break into your house, steal your book, leave a cash refund on your table and then leave your property without any one noticing just to get the book back. A crime has now been committed; namely trespassing, breaking and entering and theft.</p><p>Both of these scenarios are exactly the same, except that in today's scenario the book is in a DIGITAL format, which for some magical reason means that a publisher can trespass onto your property and steal something that you own.</p><p>In what other context, except the digital context, would behavior like this be tolerated or acceptable, and not to mention legal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a pretty amazing story .
In the Digital Age a distributor fells that they are allowed to invade an electronic device that you own , steal a copy of digital media that you own and force you to accept a refund for something that YOU own.Let 's imagine this happened thirty years ago , or even ten years ago for that matter .
A book store sells a book to you and for whatever the publisher decides they do n't want to sell the book to you and must have it back .
The publisher must now trespass onto your property , break into your house , steal your book , leave a cash refund on your table and then leave your property without any one noticing just to get the book back .
A crime has now been committed ; namely trespassing , breaking and entering and theft.Both of these scenarios are exactly the same , except that in today 's scenario the book is in a DIGITAL format , which for some magical reason means that a publisher can trespass onto your property and steal something that you own.In what other context , except the digital context , would behavior like this be tolerated or acceptable , and not to mention legal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a pretty amazing story.
In the Digital Age a distributor fells that they are allowed to invade an electronic device that you own, steal a copy of digital media that you own and force you to accept a refund for something that YOU own.Let's imagine this happened thirty years ago, or even ten years ago for that matter.
A book store sells a book to you and for whatever the publisher decides they don't want to sell the book to you and must have it back.
The publisher must now trespass onto your property, break into your house, steal your book, leave a cash refund on your table and then leave your property without any one noticing just to get the book back.
A crime has now been committed; namely trespassing, breaking and entering and theft.Both of these scenarios are exactly the same, except that in today's scenario the book is in a DIGITAL format, which for some magical reason means that a publisher can trespass onto your property and steal something that you own.In what other context, except the digital context, would behavior like this be tolerated or acceptable, and not to mention legal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740673</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>cemulli</author>
	<datestamp>1247931120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>George Orwell died in 1950.  (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_Orwell" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">link</a> [wikipedia.org]), and 1984 was published in 1949.</p><p>The copyright law in effect in the US in 1949 allowed for a 28 "first" term, with a possible 28 year extension. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_copyright\_law" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">link</a> [wikipedia.org]).</p><p>The law was changed in 1976, allowing any published work still in its first-term to be extended another 67 years.  Since 1949 + 28 = 1977, Orwell's work was still in its first term, and would not have expired under the original law until 2005 -- or 2053 under the 1976 extension.</p></div><p>Actually, works created prior to 1976 still had to have their copyright renewed. There's a whole big mess if you're trying to explain to a Copyright class how to tell whether the old formality of having to renew was still required to be followed. [[Round 1, Battle of the Legal Semi-Professionals]]</p><p>This is actually like a final exam question, so I'll do my best. As I recall (I can dig around in my notes from last semester for more concrete stuff, but I'm on a different computer right now), in 1990, there was an amendment to the Copyright Act that created automatic renewal, but ONLY for works that were still in their first renewal period at the time of the Act. PRIOR TO 1990, then, the old renewal rules for works created before 1976 were still in place. Translation: Works created between 1962 and 1976, which previously would have had to go through the renewal process, suddenly found themselves automatically renewed, no worries.</p><p>However, because you provided such well-documented information already, we already know that <i>1984</i> was first published in 1949. Because it was in its SECOND renewal term when 1990 amendment was passed, then the renewal requirement still existed for <i>1984</i> when it hit the end of its first renewal period in 1977. Accordingly, the all-important question is whether Orwell's heirs exercised the renewal right during 1977, regardless of the fact that works created AFTER 1/1/77 did not have a renewal period at all.</p><p>And as to the copyright law on the other side of the pond, the Sonny Bony Copyright Term Extension Act was defended in Eldred v. Ashcroft as being a way to put U.S. copyright law more in line with European copyright law. I don't know a whole lot about the Berne Convention though, so I don't know what the law was like in the UK in 1949... I mostly just know that European copyright emphasis tends to be more on moral rights (ie, more focus on attribution) than our system (ie, more focus on the $$bottom line$$). </p><p>Random Copyright class trivia: For the first couple hundred years, the U.S. view of copyright was "What can we steal from other countries?", and it evolved into the perpetual copyright regime of profit and corporate interests that you see before you today. The U.S. system back in the 1800s wouldn't even recognize a copyright from another country as valid unless the work was actually manufactured/published by a publisher in the U.S. - and as to other boring history of Copyright, yes, Copyright did come about in the UK entirely to protect the economic interests of the publishers. Translation: Author? What author? </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>George Orwell died in 1950 .
( link [ wikipedia.org ] ) , and 1984 was published in 1949.The copyright law in effect in the US in 1949 allowed for a 28 " first " term , with a possible 28 year extension .
( link [ wikipedia.org ] ) .The law was changed in 1976 , allowing any published work still in its first-term to be extended another 67 years .
Since 1949 + 28 = 1977 , Orwell 's work was still in its first term , and would not have expired under the original law until 2005 -- or 2053 under the 1976 extension.Actually , works created prior to 1976 still had to have their copyright renewed .
There 's a whole big mess if you 're trying to explain to a Copyright class how to tell whether the old formality of having to renew was still required to be followed .
[ [ Round 1 , Battle of the Legal Semi-Professionals ] ] This is actually like a final exam question , so I 'll do my best .
As I recall ( I can dig around in my notes from last semester for more concrete stuff , but I 'm on a different computer right now ) , in 1990 , there was an amendment to the Copyright Act that created automatic renewal , but ONLY for works that were still in their first renewal period at the time of the Act .
PRIOR TO 1990 , then , the old renewal rules for works created before 1976 were still in place .
Translation : Works created between 1962 and 1976 , which previously would have had to go through the renewal process , suddenly found themselves automatically renewed , no worries.However , because you provided such well-documented information already , we already know that 1984 was first published in 1949 .
Because it was in its SECOND renewal term when 1990 amendment was passed , then the renewal requirement still existed for 1984 when it hit the end of its first renewal period in 1977 .
Accordingly , the all-important question is whether Orwell 's heirs exercised the renewal right during 1977 , regardless of the fact that works created AFTER 1/1/77 did not have a renewal period at all.And as to the copyright law on the other side of the pond , the Sonny Bony Copyright Term Extension Act was defended in Eldred v. Ashcroft as being a way to put U.S. copyright law more in line with European copyright law .
I do n't know a whole lot about the Berne Convention though , so I do n't know what the law was like in the UK in 1949... I mostly just know that European copyright emphasis tends to be more on moral rights ( ie , more focus on attribution ) than our system ( ie , more focus on the $ $ bottom line $ $ ) .
Random Copyright class trivia : For the first couple hundred years , the U.S. view of copyright was " What can we steal from other countries ?
" , and it evolved into the perpetual copyright regime of profit and corporate interests that you see before you today .
The U.S. system back in the 1800s would n't even recognize a copyright from another country as valid unless the work was actually manufactured/published by a publisher in the U.S. - and as to other boring history of Copyright , yes , Copyright did come about in the UK entirely to protect the economic interests of the publishers .
Translation : Author ?
What author ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Orwell died in 1950.
(link [wikipedia.org]), and 1984 was published in 1949.The copyright law in effect in the US in 1949 allowed for a 28 "first" term, with a possible 28 year extension.
(link [wikipedia.org]).The law was changed in 1976, allowing any published work still in its first-term to be extended another 67 years.
Since 1949 + 28 = 1977, Orwell's work was still in its first term, and would not have expired under the original law until 2005 -- or 2053 under the 1976 extension.Actually, works created prior to 1976 still had to have their copyright renewed.
There's a whole big mess if you're trying to explain to a Copyright class how to tell whether the old formality of having to renew was still required to be followed.
[[Round 1, Battle of the Legal Semi-Professionals]]This is actually like a final exam question, so I'll do my best.
As I recall (I can dig around in my notes from last semester for more concrete stuff, but I'm on a different computer right now), in 1990, there was an amendment to the Copyright Act that created automatic renewal, but ONLY for works that were still in their first renewal period at the time of the Act.
PRIOR TO 1990, then, the old renewal rules for works created before 1976 were still in place.
Translation: Works created between 1962 and 1976, which previously would have had to go through the renewal process, suddenly found themselves automatically renewed, no worries.However, because you provided such well-documented information already, we already know that 1984 was first published in 1949.
Because it was in its SECOND renewal term when 1990 amendment was passed, then the renewal requirement still existed for 1984 when it hit the end of its first renewal period in 1977.
Accordingly, the all-important question is whether Orwell's heirs exercised the renewal right during 1977, regardless of the fact that works created AFTER 1/1/77 did not have a renewal period at all.And as to the copyright law on the other side of the pond, the Sonny Bony Copyright Term Extension Act was defended in Eldred v. Ashcroft as being a way to put U.S. copyright law more in line with European copyright law.
I don't know a whole lot about the Berne Convention though, so I don't know what the law was like in the UK in 1949... I mostly just know that European copyright emphasis tends to be more on moral rights (ie, more focus on attribution) than our system (ie, more focus on the $$bottom line$$).
Random Copyright class trivia: For the first couple hundred years, the U.S. view of copyright was "What can we steal from other countries?
", and it evolved into the perpetual copyright regime of profit and corporate interests that you see before you today.
The U.S. system back in the 1800s wouldn't even recognize a copyright from another country as valid unless the work was actually manufactured/published by a publisher in the U.S. - and as to other boring history of Copyright, yes, Copyright did come about in the UK entirely to protect the economic interests of the publishers.
Translation: Author?
What author? 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739697</id>
	<title>Eastasia*</title>
	<author>dragisha</author>
	<datestamp>1247919660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>War is waged against Eurasia.</p><p>In other news, my wait for Kindle DX cloned/hacked continues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>War is waged against Eurasia.In other news , my wait for Kindle DX cloned/hacked continues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War is waged against Eurasia.In other news, my wait for Kindle DX cloned/hacked continues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739035</id>
	<title>Be careful what you say</title>
	<author>cstacy</author>
	<datestamp>1247907960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be careful what you say,<br>or they'll take you<br>to room 404</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be careful what you say,or they 'll take youto room 404</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be careful what you say,or they'll take youto room 404</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738345</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1247852640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And then it would be legal for me to import that book, right?</p></div><p>Not unless you have the written permission of the US copyright holder on 1984.  Which they usually don't give without receiving money.</p><p>Electrons mean crap here.  It's copyright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then it would be legal for me to import that book , right ? Not unless you have the written permission of the US copyright holder on 1984 .
Which they usually do n't give without receiving money.Electrons mean crap here .
It 's copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then it would be legal for me to import that book, right?Not unless you have the written permission of the US copyright holder on 1984.
Which they usually don't give without receiving money.Electrons mean crap here.
It's copyright.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736407</id>
	<title>The only time I'll ever recommend a Sony product.</title>
	<author>Orbijx</author>
	<datestamp>1247833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have this problem with my ebook reading.</p><p>Then again, I also spent less than $200, even with buying the necessary kit to modify two used Sony PSPs (PSP-1001, PSP-2000) so I can run eBook reading software on them.<br>Combined with content available via the Gutenberg Project, I'm left scratching my head, wondering what's with people spending money on the Kindle.</p><p>The Kindle has all of... one? advantage: Whispernet. I have to be near a wireless router to fire up a browser and get a new book or two on said PSP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have this problem with my ebook reading.Then again , I also spent less than $ 200 , even with buying the necessary kit to modify two used Sony PSPs ( PSP-1001 , PSP-2000 ) so I can run eBook reading software on them.Combined with content available via the Gutenberg Project , I 'm left scratching my head , wondering what 's with people spending money on the Kindle.The Kindle has all of... one ? advantage : Whispernet .
I have to be near a wireless router to fire up a browser and get a new book or two on said PSP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have this problem with my ebook reading.Then again, I also spent less than $200, even with buying the necessary kit to modify two used Sony PSPs (PSP-1001, PSP-2000) so I can run eBook reading software on them.Combined with content available via the Gutenberg Project, I'm left scratching my head, wondering what's with people spending money on the Kindle.The Kindle has all of... one? advantage: Whispernet.
I have to be near a wireless router to fire up a browser and get a new book or two on said PSP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737343</id>
	<title>Score 1 to Stallman</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1247840820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html</a> [gnu.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [ gnu.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737203</id>
	<title>This is bad for Amazon, too</title>
	<author>Geckoman</author>
	<datestamp>1247839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't condone what Amazon did, and I think they should've gone to bat for their customers, but don't lose sight of what a problem this presents for Amazon's bottom line.</p><p>This could render them effectively unable to use any of the Kindle ebook revenue for non-public domain works, since they could conceivably be required to refund all of those funds at the demand of the publishers.  They could be forced to collect the money, then just stuff it into an interest-bearing account in case they have to give it back.</p><p>So, in effect, we're not even renting the ebooks, we're just giving Amazon an interest-free loan in exchange for getting to borrow the books for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't condone what Amazon did , and I think they should 've gone to bat for their customers , but do n't lose sight of what a problem this presents for Amazon 's bottom line.This could render them effectively unable to use any of the Kindle ebook revenue for non-public domain works , since they could conceivably be required to refund all of those funds at the demand of the publishers .
They could be forced to collect the money , then just stuff it into an interest-bearing account in case they have to give it back.So , in effect , we 're not even renting the ebooks , we 're just giving Amazon an interest-free loan in exchange for getting to borrow the books for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't condone what Amazon did, and I think they should've gone to bat for their customers, but don't lose sight of what a problem this presents for Amazon's bottom line.This could render them effectively unable to use any of the Kindle ebook revenue for non-public domain works, since they could conceivably be required to refund all of those funds at the demand of the publishers.
They could be forced to collect the money, then just stuff it into an interest-bearing account in case they have to give it back.So, in effect, we're not even renting the ebooks, we're just giving Amazon an interest-free loan in exchange for getting to borrow the books for a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738603</id>
	<title>Question for Amazon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247858040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wrote to Amazon, using my account, and asked if the same policy applies to hard copies of books purchased. Do they reserve the right to break into my house and take them back if they decide I shouldn't have them? Perhaps some of you have related questions to ask Amazon. Here is the contact page, to save you some work:<br>https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-questions.html?ie=UTF8&amp;nodeId=&amp;type=email&amp;skip=true#csTop</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote to Amazon , using my account , and asked if the same policy applies to hard copies of books purchased .
Do they reserve the right to break into my house and take them back if they decide I should n't have them ?
Perhaps some of you have related questions to ask Amazon .
Here is the contact page , to save you some work : https : //www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-questions.html ? ie = UTF8&amp;nodeId = &amp;type = email&amp;skip = true # csTop</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote to Amazon, using my account, and asked if the same policy applies to hard copies of books purchased.
Do they reserve the right to break into my house and take them back if they decide I shouldn't have them?
Perhaps some of you have related questions to ask Amazon.
Here is the contact page, to save you some work:https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-questions.html?ie=UTF8&amp;nodeId=&amp;type=email&amp;skip=true#csTop</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739137</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1247909580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know the UK laws, I don't have a good guide for the UK laws</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga\_19880048\_en\_2#pt1-ch1-pb4-l1g12" title="opsi.gov.uk">Life + 50</a> [opsi.gov.uk]. So it expired a while back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know the UK laws , I do n't have a good guide for the UK laws Life + 50 [ opsi.gov.uk ] .
So it expired a while back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know the UK laws, I don't have a good guide for the UK laws Life + 50 [opsi.gov.uk].
So it expired a while back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744043</id>
	<title>Re:The author has been dead for 60 years!</title>
	<author>civilizedINTENSITY</author>
	<datestamp>1247917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your statement, "solution to balance the various interests", is in itself flawed.  There are no intrinsic rights to IP, merely a social experiment that hopes that by giving away some of our Public Rights, the Public will be purchasing something of equal or greater value.  Only insofar as the public benefits does any "balance" come in to play.  <br> <br>Does (Public - some of their Rights) =&gt; (content authors + Public Rights ) result in more benefit to the public?  If so, the purchase was a bargain.  If not, the experiment needs to be revoked or reformulated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your statement , " solution to balance the various interests " , is in itself flawed .
There are no intrinsic rights to IP , merely a social experiment that hopes that by giving away some of our Public Rights , the Public will be purchasing something of equal or greater value .
Only insofar as the public benefits does any " balance " come in to play .
Does ( Public - some of their Rights ) = &gt; ( content authors + Public Rights ) result in more benefit to the public ?
If so , the purchase was a bargain .
If not , the experiment needs to be revoked or reformulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your statement, "solution to balance the various interests", is in itself flawed.
There are no intrinsic rights to IP, merely a social experiment that hopes that by giving away some of our Public Rights, the Public will be purchasing something of equal or greater value.
Only insofar as the public benefits does any "balance" come in to play.
Does (Public - some of their Rights) =&gt; (content authors + Public Rights ) result in more benefit to the public?
If so, the purchase was a bargain.
If not, the experiment needs to be revoked or reformulated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737717</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've seen what Amazon can do. Posting text from the license here won't stop them. Your post will disappear, mark my words.</p><p>P.S. I first released Amazon can yank a book from the Kindle a while ago - I purchased a book and downloaded it directly on the Kindle, then shut the wireless off to conserve battery life. Unbeknownst to me, my CC on my Amazon account had expired. I was 1/3rd of the way through the book next time I turned the wireless on, and bam, they yanked it back within seconds of connecting!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've seen what Amazon can do .
Posting text from the license here wo n't stop them .
Your post will disappear , mark my words.P.S .
I first released Amazon can yank a book from the Kindle a while ago - I purchased a book and downloaded it directly on the Kindle , then shut the wireless off to conserve battery life .
Unbeknownst to me , my CC on my Amazon account had expired .
I was 1/3rd of the way through the book next time I turned the wireless on , and bam , they yanked it back within seconds of connecting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've seen what Amazon can do.
Posting text from the license here won't stop them.
Your post will disappear, mark my words.P.S.
I first released Amazon can yank a book from the Kindle a while ago - I purchased a book and downloaded it directly on the Kindle, then shut the wireless off to conserve battery life.
Unbeknownst to me, my CC on my Amazon account had expired.
I was 1/3rd of the way through the book next time I turned the wireless on, and bam, they yanked it back within seconds of connecting!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738459</id>
	<title>Imagine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247855100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someday someone in some corporate office decides that you should not read or think a certain way. So the book or newspaper article just disappears from your reader. It doesn't exist, it never existed. Or better yet, you are reading a book and find that it is not the same book you read twenty years ago because the story has been changed in some subtle way. Turns out you don't have to take away people's rights at the point of a gun. Just give them some easy and convenient technology that's "really cool" and they'll surrender their rights without a whimper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someday someone in some corporate office decides that you should not read or think a certain way .
So the book or newspaper article just disappears from your reader .
It does n't exist , it never existed .
Or better yet , you are reading a book and find that it is not the same book you read twenty years ago because the story has been changed in some subtle way .
Turns out you do n't have to take away people 's rights at the point of a gun .
Just give them some easy and convenient technology that 's " really cool " and they 'll surrender their rights without a whimper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someday someone in some corporate office decides that you should not read or think a certain way.
So the book or newspaper article just disappears from your reader.
It doesn't exist, it never existed.
Or better yet, you are reading a book and find that it is not the same book you read twenty years ago because the story has been changed in some subtle way.
Turns out you don't have to take away people's rights at the point of a gun.
Just give them some easy and convenient technology that's "really cool" and they'll surrender their rights without a whimper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740443</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1247929320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't an issue of it being recalled, it is more of an issue that the entity who sold it to you was never supposed to....
<p>
Consider that if you buy a car from a used car lot, and then after you buy it, it turns out that it was stolen.... you can say goodbye to your car... there is squat-all you can do to keep it... and any money you are out of will have to be taken up directly with the place where you bought it. If they are nice, they may even refund your money before you even asked, and would undoubtedly attempt to sue who they purchased it from.  Differences between physical property theft and copyright infringement notwithstanding, I imagine that Amazon's lawyers are busy doing something like this as we speak, since the entity that made these ebooks available to Amazon appears to never have actually had the authority to have done so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't an issue of it being recalled , it is more of an issue that the entity who sold it to you was never supposed to... . Consider that if you buy a car from a used car lot , and then after you buy it , it turns out that it was stolen.... you can say goodbye to your car... there is squat-all you can do to keep it... and any money you are out of will have to be taken up directly with the place where you bought it .
If they are nice , they may even refund your money before you even asked , and would undoubtedly attempt to sue who they purchased it from .
Differences between physical property theft and copyright infringement notwithstanding , I imagine that Amazon 's lawyers are busy doing something like this as we speak , since the entity that made these ebooks available to Amazon appears to never have actually had the authority to have done so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't an issue of it being recalled, it is more of an issue that the entity who sold it to you was never supposed to....

Consider that if you buy a car from a used car lot, and then after you buy it, it turns out that it was stolen.... you can say goodbye to your car... there is squat-all you can do to keep it... and any money you are out of will have to be taken up directly with the place where you bought it.
If they are nice, they may even refund your money before you even asked, and would undoubtedly attempt to sue who they purchased it from.
Differences between physical property theft and copyright infringement notwithstanding, I imagine that Amazon's lawyers are busy doing something like this as we speak, since the entity that made these ebooks available to Amazon appears to never have actually had the authority to have done so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738949</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247949360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with Vonnegut's "Man Without a Country" is that you can't tell when he's kidding.</p><p>He says "The arts are not a way to make a living.  They are a very human way of making life more bearable.  Practising an art, no matter how well or how badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  Do it as well as you can.  You will get an enormous reward.  You will have created something."</p><p>The problem which arises when we attempt to turn the arts into a way of making a living, is that the larger social context breaks down.  We make art out of our experiences.  If your experiences are effectively owned by another party, you can make art out of your experiences, but then you won't entirely own the end result.  Not even enough to give it away.</p><p>The soul-growing aspect of art is not its consumption, but the creative synthesis which art inspires.  Art consumed is popcorn and butter.  Nourishing in a caloric sense, but not nutritious.</p><p>At the risk of quoting a spoiler, Vonnegut recites the wisdom of his friend Saul at the end of the book, "what you respond to in any work of art is the artist's struggle against his or her limitations."</p><p>Thus, I suppose, breaking DRM is a form of art, and our response is to the plight of the artist's prison term.</p><p>But seriously, if you view the creative works of others as fuel for your own soul-growing endeavours, it's not sensible to become emotionally invested in creative works which are militantly encumbered.</p><p>Somewhere I encountered an anecdote about children given an amazing toy, but what they end up playing with most at the end of the day is the packaging the toy came in.  I don't know anyone who was inspired to a life of artistic expression by the Mona Lisa.  For that matter, it's debatable whether sex is improved with skill.  Isn't skill mostly a compensation for the fact that the sequel rarely lives up to the original?</p><p>We're actually pretty bad at predicting our happiness states.  Gilbert says the same thing in his videos at TED.</p><p><a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/why-we-suck-at/" title="wired.com">Why We Suck at Predicting the Future</a> [wired.com].</p><p>What I'm saying is that we too often talk ourselves into needing the latest and greatest (and most encumbered) media, but we don't, and it often defeats the greater purpose.</p><p>Lessig has figured out that this quandary is harming our children.  Part of his motivation here is that we're making an ass of the law.  I guess I have less to lose if RIAA succeeds, as seems likely.</p><p><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/larry\_lessig\_says\_the\_law\_is\_strangling\_creativity.html" title="ted.com">Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity</a> [ted.com]</p><p>The deeper problem here is that many of us believe that we garner status through what we've experienced, rather than what we've created, a sentiment which Twain noted when he observed that "A classic is something everybody wants to have read, but no one wants to read."</p><p>How much of this stuff are we hurtling through so that we can sit around at the bar or the coffee shop and go "yeah, I've seen that; yeah, I've read that; yeah, I've seen that, too"?</p><p>I've been to Holland.  I spent two hours in Schiphol.  I've been to Tokyo.  I spent 12 hours in the Narita complex.  We had long enough to take a train into the city and drink one beer.</p><p>Sometimes we get a bit carried away with the belief that a gadget from Amazon or an air terminal is the gateway to a life well lived.  If you don't stick around and engage emotionally, it's all meaningless.  The Kindle model is a form of literary tourism.  Hey, if you love airport security, here's a chance to carry it around on your person.</p><p>Flash forward to Kubrick's AI when the love of our life disappears in an electronic instant (with full refund) due to a minor copyright glitch on the charming dimple module.  I've love to read the verse Shakespeare might have penned concerning that scenario, but as things are shaping up, I'd have to live another 600 years to legally post it here on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Vonnegut 's " Man Without a Country " is that you ca n't tell when he 's kidding.He says " The arts are not a way to make a living .
They are a very human way of making life more bearable .
Practising an art , no matter how well or how badly , is a way to make your soul grow , for heaven 's sake .
... Do it as well as you can .
You will get an enormous reward .
You will have created something .
" The problem which arises when we attempt to turn the arts into a way of making a living , is that the larger social context breaks down .
We make art out of our experiences .
If your experiences are effectively owned by another party , you can make art out of your experiences , but then you wo n't entirely own the end result .
Not even enough to give it away.The soul-growing aspect of art is not its consumption , but the creative synthesis which art inspires .
Art consumed is popcorn and butter .
Nourishing in a caloric sense , but not nutritious.At the risk of quoting a spoiler , Vonnegut recites the wisdom of his friend Saul at the end of the book , " what you respond to in any work of art is the artist 's struggle against his or her limitations .
" Thus , I suppose , breaking DRM is a form of art , and our response is to the plight of the artist 's prison term.But seriously , if you view the creative works of others as fuel for your own soul-growing endeavours , it 's not sensible to become emotionally invested in creative works which are militantly encumbered.Somewhere I encountered an anecdote about children given an amazing toy , but what they end up playing with most at the end of the day is the packaging the toy came in .
I do n't know anyone who was inspired to a life of artistic expression by the Mona Lisa .
For that matter , it 's debatable whether sex is improved with skill .
Is n't skill mostly a compensation for the fact that the sequel rarely lives up to the original ? We 're actually pretty bad at predicting our happiness states .
Gilbert says the same thing in his videos at TED.Why We Suck at Predicting the Future [ wired.com ] .What I 'm saying is that we too often talk ourselves into needing the latest and greatest ( and most encumbered ) media , but we do n't , and it often defeats the greater purpose.Lessig has figured out that this quandary is harming our children .
Part of his motivation here is that we 're making an ass of the law .
I guess I have less to lose if RIAA succeeds , as seems likely.Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity [ ted.com ] The deeper problem here is that many of us believe that we garner status through what we 've experienced , rather than what we 've created , a sentiment which Twain noted when he observed that " A classic is something everybody wants to have read , but no one wants to read .
" How much of this stuff are we hurtling through so that we can sit around at the bar or the coffee shop and go " yeah , I 've seen that ; yeah , I 've read that ; yeah , I 've seen that , too " ? I 've been to Holland .
I spent two hours in Schiphol .
I 've been to Tokyo .
I spent 12 hours in the Narita complex .
We had long enough to take a train into the city and drink one beer.Sometimes we get a bit carried away with the belief that a gadget from Amazon or an air terminal is the gateway to a life well lived .
If you do n't stick around and engage emotionally , it 's all meaningless .
The Kindle model is a form of literary tourism .
Hey , if you love airport security , here 's a chance to carry it around on your person.Flash forward to Kubrick 's AI when the love of our life disappears in an electronic instant ( with full refund ) due to a minor copyright glitch on the charming dimple module .
I 've love to read the verse Shakespeare might have penned concerning that scenario , but as things are shaping up , I 'd have to live another 600 years to legally post it here on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Vonnegut's "Man Without a Country" is that you can't tell when he's kidding.He says "The arts are not a way to make a living.
They are a very human way of making life more bearable.
Practising an art, no matter how well or how badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake.
...  Do it as well as you can.
You will get an enormous reward.
You will have created something.
"The problem which arises when we attempt to turn the arts into a way of making a living, is that the larger social context breaks down.
We make art out of our experiences.
If your experiences are effectively owned by another party, you can make art out of your experiences, but then you won't entirely own the end result.
Not even enough to give it away.The soul-growing aspect of art is not its consumption, but the creative synthesis which art inspires.
Art consumed is popcorn and butter.
Nourishing in a caloric sense, but not nutritious.At the risk of quoting a spoiler, Vonnegut recites the wisdom of his friend Saul at the end of the book, "what you respond to in any work of art is the artist's struggle against his or her limitations.
"Thus, I suppose, breaking DRM is a form of art, and our response is to the plight of the artist's prison term.But seriously, if you view the creative works of others as fuel for your own soul-growing endeavours, it's not sensible to become emotionally invested in creative works which are militantly encumbered.Somewhere I encountered an anecdote about children given an amazing toy, but what they end up playing with most at the end of the day is the packaging the toy came in.
I don't know anyone who was inspired to a life of artistic expression by the Mona Lisa.
For that matter, it's debatable whether sex is improved with skill.
Isn't skill mostly a compensation for the fact that the sequel rarely lives up to the original?We're actually pretty bad at predicting our happiness states.
Gilbert says the same thing in his videos at TED.Why We Suck at Predicting the Future [wired.com].What I'm saying is that we too often talk ourselves into needing the latest and greatest (and most encumbered) media, but we don't, and it often defeats the greater purpose.Lessig has figured out that this quandary is harming our children.
Part of his motivation here is that we're making an ass of the law.
I guess I have less to lose if RIAA succeeds, as seems likely.Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity [ted.com]The deeper problem here is that many of us believe that we garner status through what we've experienced, rather than what we've created, a sentiment which Twain noted when he observed that "A classic is something everybody wants to have read, but no one wants to read.
"How much of this stuff are we hurtling through so that we can sit around at the bar or the coffee shop and go "yeah, I've seen that; yeah, I've read that; yeah, I've seen that, too"?I've been to Holland.
I spent two hours in Schiphol.
I've been to Tokyo.
I spent 12 hours in the Narita complex.
We had long enough to take a train into the city and drink one beer.Sometimes we get a bit carried away with the belief that a gadget from Amazon or an air terminal is the gateway to a life well lived.
If you don't stick around and engage emotionally, it's all meaningless.
The Kindle model is a form of literary tourism.
Hey, if you love airport security, here's a chance to carry it around on your person.Flash forward to Kubrick's AI when the love of our life disappears in an electronic instant (with full refund) due to a minor copyright glitch on the charming dimple module.
I've love to read the verse Shakespeare might have penned concerning that scenario, but as things are shaping up, I'd have to live another 600 years to legally post it here on slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740387</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247928840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not unless you have the written permission of the US copyright holder on 1984</i></p><p>Are you sure?  Where in the US code does it prohibit importation of copyrighted works?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not unless you have the written permission of the US copyright holder on 1984Are you sure ?
Where in the US code does it prohibit importation of copyrighted works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not unless you have the written permission of the US copyright holder on 1984Are you sure?
Where in the US code does it prohibit importation of copyrighted works?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736839</id>
	<title>Damn it, Mark Pilgrim!</title>
	<author>Grendel Drago</author>
	<datestamp>1247836800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember thinking that <a href="http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/11/19/the-future-of-reading" title="diveintomark.org">"The Future of Reading"</a> [diveintomark.org] was a silly, over-the-top bit of polemic. Well, here's hoping that those folks <a href="http://xkcd.com/488/" title="xkcd.com">paid attention to Randall Munroe</a> [xkcd.com]... or, I suppose, <a href="http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html#orwell" title="gutenberg.net.au">infringe local copyright law by downloading a copy from a jurisdiction where it's in the public domain.</a> [gutenberg.net.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember thinking that " The Future of Reading " [ diveintomark.org ] was a silly , over-the-top bit of polemic .
Well , here 's hoping that those folks paid attention to Randall Munroe [ xkcd.com ] ... or , I suppose , infringe local copyright law by downloading a copy from a jurisdiction where it 's in the public domain .
[ gutenberg.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember thinking that "The Future of Reading" [diveintomark.org] was a silly, over-the-top bit of polemic.
Well, here's hoping that those folks paid attention to Randall Munroe [xkcd.com]... or, I suppose, infringe local copyright law by downloading a copy from a jurisdiction where it's in the public domain.
[gutenberg.net.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744321</id>
	<title>Big Brother deleting 1984</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247921220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony of it all is Big Brother deleting 1984.  Why BURN books when you can mass delete it from the comfort of your Areon Chair?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony of it all is Big Brother deleting 1984 .
Why BURN books when you can mass delete it from the comfort of your Areon Chair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony of it all is Big Brother deleting 1984.
Why BURN books when you can mass delete it from the comfort of your Areon Chair?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737237</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1247840040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, no kidding. Of all the books, from all the publishers in the world, Animal Farm and 1984 are the two books that would be the most disastrous to pull in such a fashion.</p><p>This is what happens when the general populous (and thus, your average corporate officer or businessman) is illiterate. They pull stupid shit like this and don't even realize they're a part of Orwellian behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , no kidding .
Of all the books , from all the publishers in the world , Animal Farm and 1984 are the two books that would be the most disastrous to pull in such a fashion.This is what happens when the general populous ( and thus , your average corporate officer or businessman ) is illiterate .
They pull stupid shit like this and do n't even realize they 're a part of Orwellian behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, no kidding.
Of all the books, from all the publishers in the world, Animal Farm and 1984 are the two books that would be the most disastrous to pull in such a fashion.This is what happens when the general populous (and thus, your average corporate officer or businessman) is illiterate.
They pull stupid shit like this and don't even realize they're a part of Orwellian behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736519</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247834520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally I think they should be banned from using the word sale; indefinite rental is more accurate.</p></div><p>Actually I prefer 'sale'.  This means what they did was theft (refund or not is irrelevant)</p><p>While I would prefer a copyright violation so i could get $150k for each book stolen, I'll settle for the standard 9 days in jail sentence that petty theft gets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think they should be banned from using the word sale ; indefinite rental is more accurate.Actually I prefer 'sale' .
This means what they did was theft ( refund or not is irrelevant ) While I would prefer a copyright violation so i could get $ 150k for each book stolen , I 'll settle for the standard 9 days in jail sentence that petty theft gets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think they should be banned from using the word sale; indefinite rental is more accurate.Actually I prefer 'sale'.
This means what they did was theft (refund or not is irrelevant)While I would prefer a copyright violation so i could get $150k for each book stolen, I'll settle for the standard 9 days in jail sentence that petty theft gets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737079</id>
	<title>could this type of thing happen on an ipod?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247838600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a pretty hypothetical question, so bear with me.</p><p>What would happen if an Itunes song was released accidentally by a performer's company before it was actually supposed to be released?  Let's say The Jonas Brothers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,(just for an example since we all know the song would be mass distributed very quickly), made a song and put it on Itunes.  Well, let's say that the song was not properly licensed for whatever legal mumbo jumbo and the record company wanted to withhold the sales until this was done.</p><p>What would happen if they pulled the use of that one song from everyone's ipod?</p><p>And one other question:  What would happen if there was a legal dispute over a song that was released on Itunes and the winner decided nobody had the right to have that DRM copy and needed to buy a copy from their version instead?  Could they just pull the song, refund the money and make all the users redownload the file with the new DRM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a pretty hypothetical question , so bear with me.What would happen if an Itunes song was released accidentally by a performer 's company before it was actually supposed to be released ?
Let 's say The Jonas Brothers , ( just for an example since we all know the song would be mass distributed very quickly ) , made a song and put it on Itunes .
Well , let 's say that the song was not properly licensed for whatever legal mumbo jumbo and the record company wanted to withhold the sales until this was done.What would happen if they pulled the use of that one song from everyone 's ipod ? And one other question : What would happen if there was a legal dispute over a song that was released on Itunes and the winner decided nobody had the right to have that DRM copy and needed to buy a copy from their version instead ?
Could they just pull the song , refund the money and make all the users redownload the file with the new DRM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a pretty hypothetical question, so bear with me.What would happen if an Itunes song was released accidentally by a performer's company before it was actually supposed to be released?
Let's say The Jonas Brothers ,(just for an example since we all know the song would be mass distributed very quickly), made a song and put it on Itunes.
Well, let's say that the song was not properly licensed for whatever legal mumbo jumbo and the record company wanted to withhold the sales until this was done.What would happen if they pulled the use of that one song from everyone's ipod?And one other question:  What would happen if there was a legal dispute over a song that was released on Itunes and the winner decided nobody had the right to have that DRM copy and needed to buy a copy from their version instead?
Could they just pull the song, refund the money and make all the users redownload the file with the new DRM?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28748297</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>torkus</author>
	<datestamp>1248025080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems you don't understand what anyone is talking about.</p><p>Taking a pack of gum without paying is stealing.  You most certainly DID deprive someone of their gum.  To be specific - the store.  It was their gum that was manufactured from physical, limited-resource goods, shipped to the store, stocked for sale and taken by you.  Thus the store no longer has possession of that pack of gum and they can not complete a sale for it.</p><p>However, intangible goods such as MP3s or eBooks are different, and the method of 'taking' is different.  In fact, it's not taking, it's copying.  It leaves the original entirely intact and no different than before the copy was made.  If you were selling a painting and I cam and took a picture of it...you can still sell that painting for the exact same price as before I took the picture.  It's not lessened, broken, or worn out in any way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems you do n't understand what anyone is talking about.Taking a pack of gum without paying is stealing .
You most certainly DID deprive someone of their gum .
To be specific - the store .
It was their gum that was manufactured from physical , limited-resource goods , shipped to the store , stocked for sale and taken by you .
Thus the store no longer has possession of that pack of gum and they can not complete a sale for it.However , intangible goods such as MP3s or eBooks are different , and the method of 'taking ' is different .
In fact , it 's not taking , it 's copying .
It leaves the original entirely intact and no different than before the copy was made .
If you were selling a painting and I cam and took a picture of it...you can still sell that painting for the exact same price as before I took the picture .
It 's not lessened , broken , or worn out in any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems you don't understand what anyone is talking about.Taking a pack of gum without paying is stealing.
You most certainly DID deprive someone of their gum.
To be specific - the store.
It was their gum that was manufactured from physical, limited-resource goods, shipped to the store, stocked for sale and taken by you.
Thus the store no longer has possession of that pack of gum and they can not complete a sale for it.However, intangible goods such as MP3s or eBooks are different, and the method of 'taking' is different.
In fact, it's not taking, it's copying.
It leaves the original entirely intact and no different than before the copy was made.
If you were selling a painting and I cam and took a picture of it...you can still sell that painting for the exact same price as before I took the picture.
It's not lessened, broken, or worn out in any way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28787475</id>
	<title>re amazon animal farm</title>
	<author>Mortgage</author>
	<datestamp>1248256140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a strange thing to do! one would assume there was some kind of copyright infringement on the electronic material?

Bit of an odd situation..</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a strange thing to do !
one would assume there was some kind of copyright infringement on the electronic material ?
Bit of an odd situation. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a strange thing to do!
one would assume there was some kind of copyright infringement on the electronic material?
Bit of an odd situation..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736077</id>
	<title>Time to avoid the Kindle?</title>
	<author>codeonezero</author>
	<datestamp>1247831880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More importantly for me, this incident highlights the problem with Kindle.  I guess you don't really own anything you buy, and you're subject to the whims of the publisher.   At least with a paper book or even say a PDF, you have the copy (eletronic or physical) in a means you can control.</p><p>I was contemplating about buying a Kindle but this incident, puts it on the backburner for me.  Instead I'm going to wait for a device that I can control, and avoid an e-Book store like Kindle has.
</p><p>
I really hope all electronic content stores aren't headed in this direction.  I understand publisher/content owners rights but if a vendor can control what is removed from my device how soon until a book, music, video, electronic format, appears and it upsets a lot of people to the point where a government or company caves in and gets it censored.  At that point, imagine people who aren't offended by the content having a device like Kindle that removes the censored content that wasn't offensive to these people.   Maybe an alarmist thought, but a scary one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly for me , this incident highlights the problem with Kindle .
I guess you do n't really own anything you buy , and you 're subject to the whims of the publisher .
At least with a paper book or even say a PDF , you have the copy ( eletronic or physical ) in a means you can control.I was contemplating about buying a Kindle but this incident , puts it on the backburner for me .
Instead I 'm going to wait for a device that I can control , and avoid an e-Book store like Kindle has .
I really hope all electronic content stores are n't headed in this direction .
I understand publisher/content owners rights but if a vendor can control what is removed from my device how soon until a book , music , video , electronic format , appears and it upsets a lot of people to the point where a government or company caves in and gets it censored .
At that point , imagine people who are n't offended by the content having a device like Kindle that removes the censored content that was n't offensive to these people .
Maybe an alarmist thought , but a scary one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly for me, this incident highlights the problem with Kindle.
I guess you don't really own anything you buy, and you're subject to the whims of the publisher.
At least with a paper book or even say a PDF, you have the copy (eletronic or physical) in a means you can control.I was contemplating about buying a Kindle but this incident, puts it on the backburner for me.
Instead I'm going to wait for a device that I can control, and avoid an e-Book store like Kindle has.
I really hope all electronic content stores aren't headed in this direction.
I understand publisher/content owners rights but if a vendor can control what is removed from my device how soon until a book, music, video, electronic format, appears and it upsets a lot of people to the point where a government or company caves in and gets it censored.
At that point, imagine people who aren't offended by the content having a device like Kindle that removes the censored content that wasn't offensive to these people.
Maybe an alarmist thought, but a scary one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735963</id>
	<title>Class Action Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247831100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, oh, please, Kindle owners sue!  This would make for an interesting case.  If the property in question were concrete like a lawn mower that I purchased at Home Depot, HD decides they want it back so they pull it from my back yard but credit my account isn't that still theft?  I'm dying to see what is made of this.</p><p>I can see Amazon no longer allowing it to be purchased for download but actively pulling content that has already been purchased and downloaded sounds criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , oh , please , Kindle owners sue !
This would make for an interesting case .
If the property in question were concrete like a lawn mower that I purchased at Home Depot , HD decides they want it back so they pull it from my back yard but credit my account is n't that still theft ?
I 'm dying to see what is made of this.I can see Amazon no longer allowing it to be purchased for download but actively pulling content that has already been purchased and downloaded sounds criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, oh, please, Kindle owners sue!
This would make for an interesting case.
If the property in question were concrete like a lawn mower that I purchased at Home Depot, HD decides they want it back so they pull it from my back yard but credit my account isn't that still theft?
I'm dying to see what is made of this.I can see Amazon no longer allowing it to be purchased for download but actively pulling content that has already been purchased and downloaded sounds criminal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736689</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>squiggleslash</author>
	<datestamp>1247835660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Well, I can think of one set of circumstances where they could, conceivably, demand back that first edition and compel you to cooperate: if the first edition was stolen.
</p><p>
And, if I understand the story here correctly, that's not far off what's happened. Amazon "sold" digital copies of a book it didn't have a license to make those copies of. Thus the copies that were deposited on people's Kindles were there in violation of copyright law.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I can think of one set of circumstances where they could , conceivably , demand back that first edition and compel you to cooperate : if the first edition was stolen .
And , if I understand the story here correctly , that 's not far off what 's happened .
Amazon " sold " digital copies of a book it did n't have a license to make those copies of .
Thus the copies that were deposited on people 's Kindles were there in violation of copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Well, I can think of one set of circumstances where they could, conceivably, demand back that first edition and compel you to cooperate: if the first edition was stolen.
And, if I understand the story here correctly, that's not far off what's happened.
Amazon "sold" digital copies of a book it didn't have a license to make those copies of.
Thus the copies that were deposited on people's Kindles were there in violation of copyright law.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737477</id>
	<title>Re:suckers</title>
	<author>Daemonax</author>
	<datestamp>1247842140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I myself have just become a member of the Folio Society, which produces high quality books. There are quite a few good ones in there, including some good science books, such as those by Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker. They certainly cost more than the cheap paperback versions you can easily find, but one day I would like to have a bookshelf full of high quality (both in content and construction) books that I've read. <a href="http://www.foliosociety.com/" title="foliosociety.com">http://www.foliosociety.com/</a> [foliosociety.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I myself have just become a member of the Folio Society , which produces high quality books .
There are quite a few good ones in there , including some good science books , such as those by Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker .
They certainly cost more than the cheap paperback versions you can easily find , but one day I would like to have a bookshelf full of high quality ( both in content and construction ) books that I 've read .
http : //www.foliosociety.com/ [ foliosociety.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I myself have just become a member of the Folio Society, which produces high quality books.
There are quite a few good ones in there, including some good science books, such as those by Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker.
They certainly cost more than the cheap paperback versions you can easily find, but one day I would like to have a bookshelf full of high quality (both in content and construction) books that I've read.
http://www.foliosociety.com/ [foliosociety.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736007</id>
	<title>What it says is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247831400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your data is not safe with us -- Kindle.</p><p>Imagine Bush were going to read the novel from his Kindle at an elementary school..I wonder what his facial reaction would be when he couldn't find the book. Must be very confused.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your data is not safe with us -- Kindle.Imagine Bush were going to read the novel from his Kindle at an elementary school..I wonder what his facial reaction would be when he could n't find the book .
Must be very confused .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your data is not safe with us -- Kindle.Imagine Bush were going to read the novel from his Kindle at an elementary school..I wonder what his facial reaction would be when he couldn't find the book.
Must be very confused.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741969</id>
	<title>Feedbooks</title>
	<author>Epsillon</author>
	<datestamp>1247942160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems they (1984 and Animal Farm) have both disappeared from Feedbooks, too. Strangely, they haven't disappeared from my Tungsten's SD card. Looks like I control my devices, not some faceless waste of oxygen in an office. What a very odd, possibly seditious idea...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems they ( 1984 and Animal Farm ) have both disappeared from Feedbooks , too .
Strangely , they have n't disappeared from my Tungsten 's SD card .
Looks like I control my devices , not some faceless waste of oxygen in an office .
What a very odd , possibly seditious idea.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems they (1984 and Animal Farm) have both disappeared from Feedbooks, too.
Strangely, they haven't disappeared from my Tungsten's SD card.
Looks like I control my devices, not some faceless waste of oxygen in an office.
What a very odd, possibly seditious idea...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739631</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>malice</author>
	<datestamp>1247918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property. . . If you buy a stolen ipod, it can get confiscated by the police.</p></div><p>IGNORANCE IS <b>NOT</b> STRENGTH</p><p>IDEAS ARE <b>NOT</b> PROPERTY</p><p>Taking an iPod from somebody <b> <em>deprives</em> that person of an iPod</b>.  Having an extra copy of a book <b>does not take <em>any</em>thing from <em>any</em>one</b>.  Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.</p></div><p>RHETORIC IS <b>NOT</b> REALITY</p><p>UNSHAVEN HIPPIES SPEAKING IN TONGUES ARE <b>NOT</b> THE MESSIAH</p><p>You are taking the <b>right</b> to copy an original work from the artist who created it.  You are depriving him or her of the right bestowed to him by law, just as freedom of speech is bestowed unto him or her by law.</p><p>You are taking the fruits of someone else's labor, the hours and days and years of study and work that culminated in the creation they put out on the free market for sale.</p><p>That the tools used didn't create a physical object you can fold, spindle, or mutilate means little.  R&amp;D costs are the bulk of most sophisticated manufactured goods, whether physical or ephemeral.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kindle customers have , in effect , been sold " stolen " property .
. .
If you buy a stolen ipod , it can get confiscated by the police.IGNORANCE IS NOT STRENGTHIDEAS ARE NOT PROPERTYTaking an iPod from somebody deprives that person of an iPod .
Having an extra copy of a book does not take anything from anyone .
Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.RHETORIC IS NOT REALITYUNSHAVEN HIPPIES SPEAKING IN TONGUES ARE NOT THE MESSIAHYou are taking the right to copy an original work from the artist who created it .
You are depriving him or her of the right bestowed to him by law , just as freedom of speech is bestowed unto him or her by law.You are taking the fruits of someone else 's labor , the hours and days and years of study and work that culminated in the creation they put out on the free market for sale.That the tools used did n't create a physical object you can fold , spindle , or mutilate means little .
R&amp;D costs are the bulk of most sophisticated manufactured goods , whether physical or ephemeral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property.
. .
If you buy a stolen ipod, it can get confiscated by the police.IGNORANCE IS NOT STRENGTHIDEAS ARE NOT PROPERTYTaking an iPod from somebody  deprives that person of an iPod.
Having an extra copy of a book does not take anything from anyone.
Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.RHETORIC IS NOT REALITYUNSHAVEN HIPPIES SPEAKING IN TONGUES ARE NOT THE MESSIAHYou are taking the right to copy an original work from the artist who created it.
You are depriving him or her of the right bestowed to him by law, just as freedom of speech is bestowed unto him or her by law.You are taking the fruits of someone else's labor, the hours and days and years of study and work that culminated in the creation they put out on the free market for sale.That the tools used didn't create a physical object you can fold, spindle, or mutilate means little.
R&amp;D costs are the bulk of most sophisticated manufactured goods, whether physical or ephemeral.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737315</id>
	<title>Re:suckers</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1247840700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? I'd agree with you that books aren't obsolete, but it certainly isn't true that they're cheap. A longer hardcover novel will run a person $30ish and the paper version probably $20+ these days. I know there's inflation and all to account for, but that isn't "cheap".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
I 'd agree with you that books are n't obsolete , but it certainly is n't true that they 're cheap .
A longer hardcover novel will run a person $ 30ish and the paper version probably $ 20 + these days .
I know there 's inflation and all to account for , but that is n't " cheap " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
I'd agree with you that books aren't obsolete, but it certainly isn't true that they're cheap.
A longer hardcover novel will run a person $30ish and the paper version probably $20+ these days.
I know there's inflation and all to account for, but that isn't "cheap".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736421</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1247833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet the problem is it is free legally online, seems lime more american corporate bullshit to me.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen\_Eighty-Four#The\_War" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen\_Eighty-Four#The\_War</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet the problem is it is free legally online , seems lime more american corporate bullshit to me.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen \ _Eighty-Four # The \ _War [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet the problem is it is free legally online, seems lime more american corporate bullshit to me.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen\_Eighty-Four#The\_War [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737759</id>
	<title>Re:Why Buy it When you Can Get it Legally for Free</title>
	<author>Fizzol</author>
	<datestamp>1247844840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wasn't on a "whim." Stop spreading FUD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't on a " whim .
" Stop spreading FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't on a "whim.
" Stop spreading FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739087</id>
	<title>US copyright law is at fault, not Amazon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247908740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I don't get the big deal. Obviously I'm no fan of DRM but with the Kindle you are paying for convenience and wireless service. If you are in the middle of reading the book then keep your wireless off and they can't remove anything. But I frankly welcome publishers making Amazon take back my purchases and give me a full refund. It's like a free library. How often can you take books you've already read to a used book store and sell them back for the full cover price? If there was no full refund then obviously it would be totally unacceptable. But now with all the indignation Amazon has said they'll never do it again. Thanks a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I do n't get the big deal .
Obviously I 'm no fan of DRM but with the Kindle you are paying for convenience and wireless service .
If you are in the middle of reading the book then keep your wireless off and they ca n't remove anything .
But I frankly welcome publishers making Amazon take back my purchases and give me a full refund .
It 's like a free library .
How often can you take books you 've already read to a used book store and sell them back for the full cover price ?
If there was no full refund then obviously it would be totally unacceptable .
But now with all the indignation Amazon has said they 'll never do it again .
Thanks a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I don't get the big deal.
Obviously I'm no fan of DRM but with the Kindle you are paying for convenience and wireless service.
If you are in the middle of reading the book then keep your wireless off and they can't remove anything.
But I frankly welcome publishers making Amazon take back my purchases and give me a full refund.
It's like a free library.
How often can you take books you've already read to a used book store and sell them back for the full cover price?
If there was no full refund then obviously it would be totally unacceptable.
But now with all the indignation Amazon has said they'll never do it again.
Thanks a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28747613</id>
	<title>The Right To Read</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1248017580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me a bit about rms's old short story, <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html" title="gnu.org">The Right To Read</a> [gnu.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me a bit about rms 's old short story , The Right To Read [ gnu.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me a bit about rms's old short story, The Right To Read [gnu.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739073</id>
	<title>Re:suckers</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247908500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Oh dead tree books are so obsolete, even though they are cheap</i></p><p>They're a lot more expensive than electronic distribution, even taking into account electricity.</p><p><i>last longer than I ever will, and don't need electricity!</i></p><p>Well, actually, to last longer than you will, they need to be kept in reasonable surroundings, which costs money and electricity to maintain.</p><p><i>can't be altered from a distance,</i></p><p>They can, however, be altered by police breaking down your door and getting physical with them.  Electronic books, on the other hand, can be easily hidden and securely encrypted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dead tree books are so obsolete , even though they are cheapThey 're a lot more expensive than electronic distribution , even taking into account electricity.last longer than I ever will , and do n't need electricity ! Well , actually , to last longer than you will , they need to be kept in reasonable surroundings , which costs money and electricity to maintain.ca n't be altered from a distance,They can , however , be altered by police breaking down your door and getting physical with them .
Electronic books , on the other hand , can be easily hidden and securely encrypted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dead tree books are so obsolete, even though they are cheapThey're a lot more expensive than electronic distribution, even taking into account electricity.last longer than I ever will, and don't need electricity!Well, actually, to last longer than you will, they need to be kept in reasonable surroundings, which costs money and electricity to maintain.can't be altered from a distance,They can, however, be altered by police breaking down your door and getting physical with them.
Electronic books, on the other hand, can be easily hidden and securely encrypted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736255</id>
	<title>Amazon also breached their own EULA</title>
	<author>snitty</author>
	<datestamp>1247832960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They actually breached their license agreements with their users who downloaded the book:</p><p><a href="http://www.technicallylegal.org/amazon-breaches-kindle-user-contracts/" title="technicallylegal.org">http://www.technicallylegal.org/amazon-breaches-kindle-user-contracts/</a> [technicallylegal.org]</p><p>The EULA does say that you can't collect damages, and have to arbitrate confidentially in Seattle.</p><p>Makes you wonder if people who had this are free to breach the other parts of the contract now that Amazon has breached their duty? Could they reverse engineer now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They actually breached their license agreements with their users who downloaded the book : http : //www.technicallylegal.org/amazon-breaches-kindle-user-contracts/ [ technicallylegal.org ] The EULA does say that you ca n't collect damages , and have to arbitrate confidentially in Seattle.Makes you wonder if people who had this are free to breach the other parts of the contract now that Amazon has breached their duty ?
Could they reverse engineer now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They actually breached their license agreements with their users who downloaded the book:http://www.technicallylegal.org/amazon-breaches-kindle-user-contracts/ [technicallylegal.org]The EULA does say that you can't collect damages, and have to arbitrate confidentially in Seattle.Makes you wonder if people who had this are free to breach the other parts of the contract now that Amazon has breached their duty?
Could they reverse engineer now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737937</id>
	<title>Re:only pirates win</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247847240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what I would do in the first place anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I would do in the first place anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I would do in the first place anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741817</id>
	<title>Re:Not irony in the literay sense...</title>
	<author>sjs132</author>
	<datestamp>1247940900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no irony... Amazon did NOT censor the book.  Had the book been censored, then parts of the book would have been removed and nobody would of ever known.  OR censorship could of happened if the book was completely removed from ALL of the Amazon book list, but 1984 is readily purchased on Amazon.com website.</p><p>Yes, a publisher changed its mind, and I'm sure in the fine print of some click through licensing, Amazon has preserved the right to remove books that fall into this catagory and refund the purchased price.   But it is not censorship.  More akin to a peanut butter recall.</p><p>Censorship is when a document about the enviorment is published in the EPA and the person who wrote it is threatend to keep it quiet, and the existance of the document is hidden.   That IS censorship and it happened just a few months ago in our own government.</p><p>So I restate my claim that NO IRONY EXISTS as it was stated because the censorship does not exist in this case!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no irony... Amazon did NOT censor the book .
Had the book been censored , then parts of the book would have been removed and nobody would of ever known .
OR censorship could of happened if the book was completely removed from ALL of the Amazon book list , but 1984 is readily purchased on Amazon.com website.Yes , a publisher changed its mind , and I 'm sure in the fine print of some click through licensing , Amazon has preserved the right to remove books that fall into this catagory and refund the purchased price .
But it is not censorship .
More akin to a peanut butter recall.Censorship is when a document about the enviorment is published in the EPA and the person who wrote it is threatend to keep it quiet , and the existance of the document is hidden .
That IS censorship and it happened just a few months ago in our own government.So I restate my claim that NO IRONY EXISTS as it was stated because the censorship does not exist in this case !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no irony... Amazon did NOT censor the book.
Had the book been censored, then parts of the book would have been removed and nobody would of ever known.
OR censorship could of happened if the book was completely removed from ALL of the Amazon book list, but 1984 is readily purchased on Amazon.com website.Yes, a publisher changed its mind, and I'm sure in the fine print of some click through licensing, Amazon has preserved the right to remove books that fall into this catagory and refund the purchased price.
But it is not censorship.
More akin to a peanut butter recall.Censorship is when a document about the enviorment is published in the EPA and the person who wrote it is threatend to keep it quiet, and the existance of the document is hidden.
That IS censorship and it happened just a few months ago in our own government.So I restate my claim that NO IRONY EXISTS as it was stated because the censorship does not exist in this case!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28756645</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248107040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just like a DVD. What are you paying $20 for?</p></div><p>You are paying $20 for a copy of someone's content.  Copyright is quite simply the right to control the creation of copies.  If you break your copy, you're screwed.  And if you make a further copy, you are violating copyright.</p><p>Yes, if the average consumer stopped to think about it, they are not getting as good a deal as they'd expect.  But they do not stop to think about it, so $20 is what the market will bear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just like a DVD .
What are you paying $ 20 for ? You are paying $ 20 for a copy of someone 's content .
Copyright is quite simply the right to control the creation of copies .
If you break your copy , you 're screwed .
And if you make a further copy , you are violating copyright.Yes , if the average consumer stopped to think about it , they are not getting as good a deal as they 'd expect .
But they do not stop to think about it , so $ 20 is what the market will bear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just like a DVD.
What are you paying $20 for?You are paying $20 for a copy of someone's content.
Copyright is quite simply the right to control the creation of copies.
If you break your copy, you're screwed.
And if you make a further copy, you are violating copyright.Yes, if the average consumer stopped to think about it, they are not getting as good a deal as they'd expect.
But they do not stop to think about it, so $20 is what the market will bear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736445</id>
	<title>Re:Forced to download edits to books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247834040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who wants a book with "errors" in it anyways. The author or someone acting on the author's behalf will be able to silently correct these mistakes without having to stop by your house or local library to collect and burn these old out of date editions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants a book with " errors " in it anyways .
The author or someone acting on the author 's behalf will be able to silently correct these mistakes without having to stop by your house or local library to collect and burn these old out of date editions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants a book with "errors" in it anyways.
The author or someone acting on the author's behalf will be able to silently correct these mistakes without having to stop by your house or local library to collect and burn these old out of date editions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738185</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Kalriath</author>
	<datestamp>1247850660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, they aren't under copyright in the US either.  They were published before 1978, so therefore the copyright extension is <b>not</b> retroactive to them (at least according to Wikipedia and the Copyright Office factsheet).  The only way they could still be under copyright is if an explicit registration was filed with the office, which there isn't (I checked).</p><p>So no, 1984 and Animal Farm are free to get - just be aware that you can't pirate a copy you pick up in a store because the cover art is under copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , they are n't under copyright in the US either .
They were published before 1978 , so therefore the copyright extension is not retroactive to them ( at least according to Wikipedia and the Copyright Office factsheet ) .
The only way they could still be under copyright is if an explicit registration was filed with the office , which there is n't ( I checked ) .So no , 1984 and Animal Farm are free to get - just be aware that you ca n't pirate a copy you pick up in a store because the cover art is under copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, they aren't under copyright in the US either.
They were published before 1978, so therefore the copyright extension is not retroactive to them (at least according to Wikipedia and the Copyright Office factsheet).
The only way they could still be under copyright is if an explicit registration was filed with the office, which there isn't (I checked).So no, 1984 and Animal Farm are free to get - just be aware that you can't pirate a copy you pick up in a store because the cover art is under copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736345</id>
	<title>Re:Class Action Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1247833500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Please, oh, please, Kindle owners sue!</p></div></blockquote><p>

Disclaimer: IANAL. <br>
Reading the license agreement, it looks like Amazon has no right to do this, which implies that buyers should be compensated for the loss of their purchase -- the question is, what is compensation? A refund? Or replacement (hardcopy)? <br>
The biggest problem, though is that the license agreement specifies arbitration for any disputes (unless Amazon decides otherwise).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , oh , please , Kindle owners sue !
Disclaimer : IANAL .
Reading the license agreement , it looks like Amazon has no right to do this , which implies that buyers should be compensated for the loss of their purchase -- the question is , what is compensation ?
A refund ?
Or replacement ( hardcopy ) ?
The biggest problem , though is that the license agreement specifies arbitration for any disputes ( unless Amazon decides otherwise ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, oh, please, Kindle owners sue!
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Reading the license agreement, it looks like Amazon has no right to do this, which implies that buyers should be compensated for the loss of their purchase -- the question is, what is compensation?
A refund?
Or replacement (hardcopy)?
The biggest problem, though is that the license agreement specifies arbitration for any disputes (unless Amazon decides otherwise).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737289</id>
	<title>How does this shit get modded up? Uh, You're Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digital content *is* owned.  The &#226;oefirst-sale doctrine&#226; of U.S. Copyright Law protects owners of digital content with EULAs.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale\_doctrine</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital content * is * owned .
The   oefirst-sale doctrine   of U.S. Copyright Law protects owners of digital content with EULAs.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale \ _doctrine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital content *is* owned.
The âoefirst-sale doctrineâ of U.S. Copyright Law protects owners of digital content with EULAs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale\_doctrine</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736207</id>
	<title>All Geeks Unite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony of this is almost too thick to cut through.  This is absolutely unacceptable, and Amazon must recant this position.  Once books are legitimately purchased, it is decidedly wrong and completely unethical to even have the power to perform an action such as this.  This cannot be tolerated.</p><p>Please flood the Kindle product page with negative reviews so that prospective buyers can be aware of this jaw dropping breach of trust and display of power:<br><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Wireless-Reading-Generation/dp/B00154JDAI/" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Wireless-Reading-Generation/dp/B00154JDAI/</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>While I have long taken a stance against DRM, this is horrifying and cannot and should not be tolerated by anybody, out of principle if nothing else.  I sincerely hope this results in a class-action lawsuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony of this is almost too thick to cut through .
This is absolutely unacceptable , and Amazon must recant this position .
Once books are legitimately purchased , it is decidedly wrong and completely unethical to even have the power to perform an action such as this .
This can not be tolerated.Please flood the Kindle product page with negative reviews so that prospective buyers can be aware of this jaw dropping breach of trust and display of power : http : //www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Wireless-Reading-Generation/dp/B00154JDAI/ [ amazon.com ] While I have long taken a stance against DRM , this is horrifying and can not and should not be tolerated by anybody , out of principle if nothing else .
I sincerely hope this results in a class-action lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony of this is almost too thick to cut through.
This is absolutely unacceptable, and Amazon must recant this position.
Once books are legitimately purchased, it is decidedly wrong and completely unethical to even have the power to perform an action such as this.
This cannot be tolerated.Please flood the Kindle product page with negative reviews so that prospective buyers can be aware of this jaw dropping breach of trust and display of power:http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Wireless-Reading-Generation/dp/B00154JDAI/ [amazon.com]While I have long taken a stance against DRM, this is horrifying and cannot and should not be tolerated by anybody, out of principle if nothing else.
I sincerely hope this results in a class-action lawsuit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738987</id>
	<title>Very funny....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247950140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The book which warned us about this situation erased...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The book which warned us about this situation erased.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book which warned us about this situation erased...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</id>
	<title>Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon deleted it because the seller didn't have rights to the book.  It's not censorship or thought suppression.
<br> <br>
Here is a *legal* copy: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref=sr\_oe\_2\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247861828&amp;sr=1-2" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref=sr\_oe\_2\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247861828&amp;sr=1-2</a> [amazon.com]
<br> <br>
It's not any different than if I took a public-domain work and tried to sell a Kindle version on Amazon.  Once it was discovered, Amazon should refund the end customers (which it has done in this case) and then take up action against me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon deleted it because the seller did n't have rights to the book .
It 's not censorship or thought suppression .
Here is a * legal * copy : http : //www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref = sr \ _oe \ _2 \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1247861828&amp;sr = 1-2 [ amazon.com ] It 's not any different than if I took a public-domain work and tried to sell a Kindle version on Amazon .
Once it was discovered , Amazon should refund the end customers ( which it has done in this case ) and then take up action against me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon deleted it because the seller didn't have rights to the book.
It's not censorship or thought suppression.
Here is a *legal* copy: http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref=sr\_oe\_2\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247861828&amp;sr=1-2 [amazon.com]
 
It's not any different than if I took a public-domain work and tried to sell a Kindle version on Amazon.
Once it was discovered, Amazon should refund the end customers (which it has done in this case) and then take up action against me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736361</id>
	<title>Isn't this stealing?</title>
	<author>blitz487</author>
	<datestamp>1247833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone takes something you bought, without permission, stealing? Even if they leave you a check for it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone takes something you bought , without permission , stealing ?
Even if they leave you a check for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone takes something you bought, without permission, stealing?
Even if they leave you a check for it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738413</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1247853840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property. (Equivalent: buying software that illegally includes GPL code). If you buy a stolen ipod, it can get confiscated by the police.</i></p><p>I get your the point you are making, and the analogy.  I'm just going to mention that wrt the GPL, the equivalent would never result in the end user, as in recipient of the code, being in trouble or losing their software.  The GPL is, as is appropriate of a copyright license, only about distribution and basically the only way you can violate it is by distributing the software without granting the recipients the same rights.  Any hypothetical recipient of GPL software is hypothetically licensed to use because 1) the GPL is explicitly not a usage license, anyone can use the software however they received it and 2) the GPL is an open offer whether the party that gave it to you include the GPL notice or not so you can still distribute the software under GPL terms.  It would be the non-GPL parts that would result in anything getting confiscated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kindle customers have , in effect , been sold " stolen " property .
( Equivalent : buying software that illegally includes GPL code ) .
If you buy a stolen ipod , it can get confiscated by the police.I get your the point you are making , and the analogy .
I 'm just going to mention that wrt the GPL , the equivalent would never result in the end user , as in recipient of the code , being in trouble or losing their software .
The GPL is , as is appropriate of a copyright license , only about distribution and basically the only way you can violate it is by distributing the software without granting the recipients the same rights .
Any hypothetical recipient of GPL software is hypothetically licensed to use because 1 ) the GPL is explicitly not a usage license , anyone can use the software however they received it and 2 ) the GPL is an open offer whether the party that gave it to you include the GPL notice or not so you can still distribute the software under GPL terms .
It would be the non-GPL parts that would result in anything getting confiscated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property.
(Equivalent: buying software that illegally includes GPL code).
If you buy a stolen ipod, it can get confiscated by the police.I get your the point you are making, and the analogy.
I'm just going to mention that wrt the GPL, the equivalent would never result in the end user, as in recipient of the code, being in trouble or losing their software.
The GPL is, as is appropriate of a copyright license, only about distribution and basically the only way you can violate it is by distributing the software without granting the recipients the same rights.
Any hypothetical recipient of GPL software is hypothetically licensed to use because 1) the GPL is explicitly not a usage license, anyone can use the software however they received it and 2) the GPL is an open offer whether the party that gave it to you include the GPL notice or not so you can still distribute the software under GPL terms.
It would be the non-GPL parts that would result in anything getting confiscated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28746825</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1248005520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nu-Slashdot has FUBARed the CSS. It looks fine in the "old" layout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nu-Slashdot has FUBARed the CSS .
It looks fine in the " old " layout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nu-Slashdot has FUBARed the CSS.
It looks fine in the "old" layout.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739989</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Techmeology</author>
	<datestamp>1247924460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find life is much simpler if you just ignore copyright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find life is much simpler if you just ignore copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find life is much simpler if you just ignore copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736127</id>
	<title>I'm sure this is contractually okay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fine print in the EULA probably allows for this, but this is certainly not in the spirit of good and normal commerce and is probably actionable under several state laws and possibly even federal laws.</p><p>I have to wonder if this "retraction" of books isn't merely an irony, but an action taken to call attention to certain issues?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fine print in the EULA probably allows for this , but this is certainly not in the spirit of good and normal commerce and is probably actionable under several state laws and possibly even federal laws.I have to wonder if this " retraction " of books is n't merely an irony , but an action taken to call attention to certain issues ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fine print in the EULA probably allows for this, but this is certainly not in the spirit of good and normal commerce and is probably actionable under several state laws and possibly even federal laws.I have to wonder if this "retraction" of books isn't merely an irony, but an action taken to call attention to certain issues?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741835</id>
	<title>Re:Digital Smoke Screen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247940960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's imagine this happened thirty years ago, or even ten years ago for that matter. A book store sells a book to you and for whatever the publisher decides they don't want to sell the book to you and must have it back. The publisher must now <b>trespass</b> onto your property, <b>break</b> into your house, steal your book, leave a cash refund on your table and then leave your property without any one noticing just to get the book back.</p></div><p>They don't need to break in, you have given them copies of your keys. They don't trespass because you have given them an open invitation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's imagine this happened thirty years ago , or even ten years ago for that matter .
A book store sells a book to you and for whatever the publisher decides they do n't want to sell the book to you and must have it back .
The publisher must now trespass onto your property , break into your house , steal your book , leave a cash refund on your table and then leave your property without any one noticing just to get the book back.They do n't need to break in , you have given them copies of your keys .
They do n't trespass because you have given them an open invitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's imagine this happened thirty years ago, or even ten years ago for that matter.
A book store sells a book to you and for whatever the publisher decides they don't want to sell the book to you and must have it back.
The publisher must now trespass onto your property, break into your house, steal your book, leave a cash refund on your table and then leave your property without any one noticing just to get the book back.They don't need to break in, you have given them copies of your keys.
They don't trespass because you have given them an open invitation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736031</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>whterbt</author>
	<datestamp>1247831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because you paid money for access to DRM-protected content. You didn't <b>buy</b> shit. It's their device (you paid money for the use of it), their content (you pay a fee to get to view it). At no time did they actually give you anything.</p><p>It's just like a DVD. What are you paying $20 for? Is it for the right to view the content? If it were, then you should be able to get a cheap replacement when the disc fails, right? Well if it's not that, then you paid for the copy of the movie, I suppose? But then, why can't you make a copy?</p><p>Pay money for DRM'd content and you'll get exactly what they want to give you - smoke and mirrors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because you paid money for access to DRM-protected content .
You did n't buy shit .
It 's their device ( you paid money for the use of it ) , their content ( you pay a fee to get to view it ) .
At no time did they actually give you anything.It 's just like a DVD .
What are you paying $ 20 for ?
Is it for the right to view the content ?
If it were , then you should be able to get a cheap replacement when the disc fails , right ?
Well if it 's not that , then you paid for the copy of the movie , I suppose ?
But then , why ca n't you make a copy ? Pay money for DRM 'd content and you 'll get exactly what they want to give you - smoke and mirrors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because you paid money for access to DRM-protected content.
You didn't buy shit.
It's their device (you paid money for the use of it), their content (you pay a fee to get to view it).
At no time did they actually give you anything.It's just like a DVD.
What are you paying $20 for?
Is it for the right to view the content?
If it were, then you should be able to get a cheap replacement when the disc fails, right?
Well if it's not that, then you paid for the copy of the movie, I suppose?
But then, why can't you make a copy?Pay money for DRM'd content and you'll get exactly what they want to give you - smoke and mirrors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736399</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247833860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead coming to get me, wget <a href="http://www.planetebook.com/1984.asp" title="planetebook.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.planetebook.com/1984.asp</a> [planetebook.com] and <a href="http://www.asiaing.com/animal-farm-by-george-orwell.html" title="asiaing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.asiaing.com/animal-farm-by-george-orwell.html</a> [asiaing.com] I'm no legal expert (I gave up on trying to understand the law), but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired (well, I think they have anyway). Even if they weren't if Amazon and publishers will do things like this, then they deserve all the piracy they wget!

---
Mod this one up, rather than either of my two comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead coming to get me , wget http : //www.planetebook.com/1984.asp [ planetebook.com ] and http : //www.asiaing.com/animal-farm-by-george-orwell.html [ asiaing.com ] I 'm no legal expert ( I gave up on trying to understand the law ) , but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired ( well , I think they have anyway ) .
Even if they were n't if Amazon and publishers will do things like this , then they deserve all the piracy they wget !
--- Mod this one up , rather than either of my two comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead coming to get me, wget http://www.planetebook.com/1984.asp [planetebook.com] and http://www.asiaing.com/animal-farm-by-george-orwell.html [asiaing.com] I'm no legal expert (I gave up on trying to understand the law), but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired (well, I think they have anyway).
Even if they weren't if Amazon and publishers will do things like this, then they deserve all the piracy they wget!
---
Mod this one up, rather than either of my two comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931</id>
	<title>The author has been dead for 60 years!</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1247830920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can there still be a copyright on this?</p><p>No wait - politicans of course.</p><p>But more to the point SHOULD there be a copyright on something from that long ago?</p><p>And if someone says it is public domain, how can they not only sell it but also deny people right to use it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can there still be a copyright on this ? No wait - politicans of course.But more to the point SHOULD there be a copyright on something from that long ago ? And if someone says it is public domain , how can they not only sell it but also deny people right to use it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can there still be a copyright on this?No wait - politicans of course.But more to the point SHOULD there be a copyright on something from that long ago?And if someone says it is public domain, how can they not only sell it but also deny people right to use it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739627</id>
	<title>Rights Mess</title>
	<author>cjb110</author>
	<datestamp>1247918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The core of the problem highlighted by this fiasco is not that a company can take away what you paid for in good faith. It's that a company that has a business model around distributing copyrighted works can't even work out who owns the copyrights!</p><p>I mean wtf?<br>How the hell can the media/entertainment companies go after the public for copyright infringement when they themselves don't have a clue who owns what.</p><p>This is issue that the governments need to sort, simplify the ownership of copyright and force any owners to keep acurate records (available to all) about what copyrights they own.  Ideally also scrap one piece of work being under multiple copyrights for stupid things like geographic region, and the practise of altering/remarketting a public domain work just so you can claim copyright on the 'new' version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The core of the problem highlighted by this fiasco is not that a company can take away what you paid for in good faith .
It 's that a company that has a business model around distributing copyrighted works ca n't even work out who owns the copyrights ! I mean wtf ? How the hell can the media/entertainment companies go after the public for copyright infringement when they themselves do n't have a clue who owns what.This is issue that the governments need to sort , simplify the ownership of copyright and force any owners to keep acurate records ( available to all ) about what copyrights they own .
Ideally also scrap one piece of work being under multiple copyrights for stupid things like geographic region , and the practise of altering/remarketting a public domain work just so you can claim copyright on the 'new ' version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The core of the problem highlighted by this fiasco is not that a company can take away what you paid for in good faith.
It's that a company that has a business model around distributing copyrighted works can't even work out who owns the copyrights!I mean wtf?How the hell can the media/entertainment companies go after the public for copyright infringement when they themselves don't have a clue who owns what.This is issue that the governments need to sort, simplify the ownership of copyright and force any owners to keep acurate records (available to all) about what copyrights they own.
Ideally also scrap one piece of work being under multiple copyrights for stupid things like geographic region, and the practise of altering/remarketting a public domain work just so you can claim copyright on the 'new' version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736541</id>
	<title>Re:The author has been dead for 60 years!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright will cause the author to create more new works!  He'll rise from the dead and type up a new novel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright will cause the author to create more new works !
He 'll rise from the dead and type up a new novel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright will cause the author to create more new works!
He'll rise from the dead and type up a new novel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737193</id>
	<title>download the audiobook.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thanks to our friends...</p><p>http://www.archive.org/details/George-Orwell-1984-Audio-book</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thanks to our friends...http : //www.archive.org/details/George-Orwell-1984-Audio-book</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thanks to our friends...http://www.archive.org/details/George-Orwell-1984-Audio-book</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742621</id>
	<title>This whole story is BS...</title>
	<author>nycguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247947260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090718/ap\_on\_en\_ot/us\_books\_orwell\_removed" title="yahoo.com">The publisher who put the books on Amazon for download apparently had no legal right to make the books thus available.</a> [yahoo.com] The publisher that did have the right to make them available asked Amazon to pull them. I don't think there's any Orwellian conspiracy here, but leave it to the Slashdot crowd to find one and work itself into a froth...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The publisher who put the books on Amazon for download apparently had no legal right to make the books thus available .
[ yahoo.com ] The publisher that did have the right to make them available asked Amazon to pull them .
I do n't think there 's any Orwellian conspiracy here , but leave it to the Slashdot crowd to find one and work itself into a froth.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The publisher who put the books on Amazon for download apparently had no legal right to make the books thus available.
[yahoo.com] The publisher that did have the right to make them available asked Amazon to pull them.
I don't think there's any Orwellian conspiracy here, but leave it to the Slashdot crowd to find one and work itself into a froth...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736041</id>
	<title>Not irony in the literay sense...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really Irony...</p><p>"A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally; the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, notably as a form of humor; The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."   - Wickonary.org</p><p>Let the fighting begin... (Any Alanis Morrissett fans? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic\_(song)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic\_(song)</a> [wikipedia.org] )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really Irony... " A statement that , when taken in context , may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally ; the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention , notably as a form of humor ; The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or ... " - Wickonary.orgLet the fighting begin... ( Any Alanis Morrissett fans ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic \ _ ( song ) [ wikipedia.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really Irony..."A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally; the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, notably as a form of humor; The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or ..."   - Wickonary.orgLet the fighting begin... (Any Alanis Morrissett fans?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic\_(song) [wikipedia.org] )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739745</id>
	<title>Re:suckers</title>
	<author>Godwin O'Hitler</author>
	<datestamp>1247920440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right. Ludditism doesn't even come into it, even if one day electronic books beat the shit out of real physical books on every count.<br>Books are something you can collect and appreciate for their simple presence on your bookshelf.<br>It's not just Luddites who'd rather have Botticelli's Venus hanging in their room than a downloadable photograph they can look at on their laptops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
Ludditism does n't even come into it , even if one day electronic books beat the shit out of real physical books on every count.Books are something you can collect and appreciate for their simple presence on your bookshelf.It 's not just Luddites who 'd rather have Botticelli 's Venus hanging in their room than a downloadable photograph they can look at on their laptops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
Ludditism doesn't even come into it, even if one day electronic books beat the shit out of real physical books on every count.Books are something you can collect and appreciate for their simple presence on your bookshelf.It's not just Luddites who'd rather have Botticelli's Venus hanging in their room than a downloadable photograph they can look at on their laptops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743011</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Drakin020</author>
	<datestamp>1247907840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Taking an iPod from somebody  deprives that person of an iPod. Having an extra copy of a book does not take anything from anyone. Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> 

So if I walk into a store and *Take* a pack of gum without paying for it, is it not stealing? I mean...I didn't deprive anyone from their gum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking an iPod from somebody deprives that person of an iPod .
Having an extra copy of a book does not take anything from anyone .
Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing .
So if I walk into a store and * Take * a pack of gum without paying for it , is it not stealing ?
I mean...I did n't deprive anyone from their gum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Taking an iPod from somebody  deprives that person of an iPod.
Having an extra copy of a book does not take anything from anyone.
Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.
So if I walk into a store and *Take* a pack of gum without paying for it, is it not stealing?
I mean...I didn't deprive anyone from their gum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736589</id>
	<title>Re:Not irony in the literay sense...</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1247835060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the literary definition of the word "ironic", which for all intents and purposes of all discussion, besides English doctorate dissertations, is incorrect.<br> <br>
Ironic means contrary to plan or expectation.  Atilla the Hun dying of a nosebleed is ironic (you would expect a warrior to die in battle).  King Arthur and his knights being attacked and overwhelmed by a rabbit is ironic.  Two books (designed to mock and illuminate the dangers of corrupting laws) being stolen from people in the name of the author almost 60 years after his death by citing a growingly corrupted law is ironic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the literary definition of the word " ironic " , which for all intents and purposes of all discussion , besides English doctorate dissertations , is incorrect .
Ironic means contrary to plan or expectation .
Atilla the Hun dying of a nosebleed is ironic ( you would expect a warrior to die in battle ) .
King Arthur and his knights being attacked and overwhelmed by a rabbit is ironic .
Two books ( designed to mock and illuminate the dangers of corrupting laws ) being stolen from people in the name of the author almost 60 years after his death by citing a growingly corrupted law is ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the literary definition of the word "ironic", which for all intents and purposes of all discussion, besides English doctorate dissertations, is incorrect.
Ironic means contrary to plan or expectation.
Atilla the Hun dying of a nosebleed is ironic (you would expect a warrior to die in battle).
King Arthur and his knights being attacked and overwhelmed by a rabbit is ironic.
Two books (designed to mock and illuminate the dangers of corrupting laws) being stolen from people in the name of the author almost 60 years after his death by citing a growingly corrupted law is ironic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738075</id>
	<title>I feel a class action lawsuit coming...</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1247848920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope one of the annoyed readers is a lawyer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope one of the annoyed readers is a lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope one of the annoyed readers is a lawyer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736575</id>
	<title>Bad precedent</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1247835060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have a gun, and they have the will to use it.<br><br>Next time because you got a problem with a credit card, your grand father comes from Iran, or your name starts with S some of your library will vanish.<br><br>Its time to realize who is really the owner of the Kindle you bought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have a gun , and they have the will to use it.Next time because you got a problem with a credit card , your grand father comes from Iran , or your name starts with S some of your library will vanish.Its time to realize who is really the owner of the Kindle you bought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have a gun, and they have the will to use it.Next time because you got a problem with a credit card, your grand father comes from Iran, or your name starts with S some of your library will vanish.Its time to realize who is really the owner of the Kindle you bought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736247</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>nicolas.kassis</author>
	<datestamp>1247832960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so? it's bad ethically. My wife, non techie, now doesn't like the kindle after I told her this. It's bad publicity for them.  She loves the Sony reader I bought, she's got tons of book from the Gutenberg project (and now google is helping make it easier for her through the sony ebook store).</htmltext>
<tokenext>so ?
it 's bad ethically .
My wife , non techie , now does n't like the kindle after I told her this .
It 's bad publicity for them .
She loves the Sony reader I bought , she 's got tons of book from the Gutenberg project ( and now google is helping make it easier for her through the sony ebook store ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so?
it's bad ethically.
My wife, non techie, now doesn't like the kindle after I told her this.
It's bad publicity for them.
She loves the Sony reader I bought, she's got tons of book from the Gutenberg project (and now google is helping make it easier for her through the sony ebook store).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738309</id>
	<title>in newspeak</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1247852160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>On 17 07 2009, 12:57 PM, NYT column "Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others" thoughtcrime describes doubleplusgood Amazon goodthink protection of rightsholders  interests in thoughtcrime prolefeed "1984" and "Animal Farm" by online rectify of Kindle Minitrue prolefeed device. Rightsholders have pubclear for said prolefeed, Amazon has noclear for publication. Amazon goodthink heroes send online rectify to all Kindle infected by thoughtcrime revs of 1984 and Animal Farm. Commendation from Minitrue to Amazon for goodthink online rectify.  Increased chocolate supply and Victory Gin for all Amazon inner party execs and commendations to involved Amazon employees in online rectify solution.
<p>
All hail Big Brother.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On 17 07 2009 , 12 : 57 PM , NYT column " Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others " thoughtcrime describes doubleplusgood Amazon goodthink protection of rightsholders interests in thoughtcrime prolefeed " 1984 " and " Animal Farm " by online rectify of Kindle Minitrue prolefeed device .
Rightsholders have pubclear for said prolefeed , Amazon has noclear for publication .
Amazon goodthink heroes send online rectify to all Kindle infected by thoughtcrime revs of 1984 and Animal Farm .
Commendation from Minitrue to Amazon for goodthink online rectify .
Increased chocolate supply and Victory Gin for all Amazon inner party execs and commendations to involved Amazon employees in online rectify solution .
All hail Big Brother .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On 17 07 2009, 12:57 PM, NYT column "Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others" thoughtcrime describes doubleplusgood Amazon goodthink protection of rightsholders  interests in thoughtcrime prolefeed "1984" and "Animal Farm" by online rectify of Kindle Minitrue prolefeed device.
Rightsholders have pubclear for said prolefeed, Amazon has noclear for publication.
Amazon goodthink heroes send online rectify to all Kindle infected by thoughtcrime revs of 1984 and Animal Farm.
Commendation from Minitrue to Amazon for goodthink online rectify.
Increased chocolate supply and Victory Gin for all Amazon inner party execs and commendations to involved Amazon employees in online rectify solution.
All hail Big Brother.
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737837</id>
	<title>In light of the current presidential Obamination..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247845800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hard to put a casual spin on this.</p><p>If I were amazon, I would have chopped a few different books first, before doing Orwell's stuff.  Let the fervor die down before you axe them so nobody cries conspiracy like they should be.  Personally, I think the Obamination camp screwed up on this one.</p><p>Folks, if you haven't read either 1984 or Animal Farm (used to be required reading in college and some high schools) you're unaware that they correlate directly to the B.S. going on in the U.S. Govt right now.</p><p>Obama?  Where is your actual birth certificate?  Not the certificate of live birth but the actual hospital birth certificate?  (the newspaper clipping about the Obama's having a son born to them was written because of the certificate of live birth, not because the newspaper saw a birth certificate!)</p><p>A government big enough to give you what you want is a govt big enough to take away everything you own.  Thomas Jefferson<br>Obama is NOT a friend of the Constitution and is NOT in favor of America remaining a Democratic-Republic.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to put a casual spin on this.If I were amazon , I would have chopped a few different books first , before doing Orwell 's stuff .
Let the fervor die down before you axe them so nobody cries conspiracy like they should be .
Personally , I think the Obamination camp screwed up on this one.Folks , if you have n't read either 1984 or Animal Farm ( used to be required reading in college and some high schools ) you 're unaware that they correlate directly to the B.S .
going on in the U.S. Govt right now.Obama ?
Where is your actual birth certificate ?
Not the certificate of live birth but the actual hospital birth certificate ?
( the newspaper clipping about the Obama 's having a son born to them was written because of the certificate of live birth , not because the newspaper saw a birth certificate !
) A government big enough to give you what you want is a govt big enough to take away everything you own .
Thomas JeffersonObama is NOT a friend of the Constitution and is NOT in favor of America remaining a Democratic-Republic .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to put a casual spin on this.If I were amazon, I would have chopped a few different books first, before doing Orwell's stuff.
Let the fervor die down before you axe them so nobody cries conspiracy like they should be.
Personally, I think the Obamination camp screwed up on this one.Folks, if you haven't read either 1984 or Animal Farm (used to be required reading in college and some high schools) you're unaware that they correlate directly to the B.S.
going on in the U.S. Govt right now.Obama?
Where is your actual birth certificate?
Not the certificate of live birth but the actual hospital birth certificate?
(the newspaper clipping about the Obama's having a son born to them was written because of the certificate of live birth, not because the newspaper saw a birth certificate!
)A government big enough to give you what you want is a govt big enough to take away everything you own.
Thomas JeffersonObama is NOT a friend of the Constitution and is NOT in favor of America remaining a Democratic-Republic.
     </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738729</id>
	<title>My fears justified?</title>
	<author>xx01dk</author>
	<datestamp>1247859900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I had any real fears, mind you, but the main reason that I don't own a Kindle or an account on itunes is precisely because of this shit--you don't physically own what you buy. Yeah I could hack an ipod or kindle to do what I want, but out of the box these objects are unacceptable to me. Digital medium still has a long way to go before the masses accept it on a level on par with existing analogue tech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I had any real fears , mind you , but the main reason that I do n't own a Kindle or an account on itunes is precisely because of this shit--you do n't physically own what you buy .
Yeah I could hack an ipod or kindle to do what I want , but out of the box these objects are unacceptable to me .
Digital medium still has a long way to go before the masses accept it on a level on par with existing analogue tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I had any real fears, mind you, but the main reason that I don't own a Kindle or an account on itunes is precisely because of this shit--you don't physically own what you buy.
Yeah I could hack an ipod or kindle to do what I want, but out of the box these objects are unacceptable to me.
Digital medium still has a long way to go before the masses accept it on a level on par with existing analogue tech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742903</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle has a remote kill feature?</title>
	<author>Amnenth</author>
	<datestamp>1247949900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>iTunes music is no longer DRM'ed, but each file downloaded still bears the name and email address of the person that purchased it.<br> <br>

Video files and apps are still under DRM though, as far as I know. (They have FairPlay markers when inspected in iTunes)</htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes music is no longer DRM'ed , but each file downloaded still bears the name and email address of the person that purchased it .
Video files and apps are still under DRM though , as far as I know .
( They have FairPlay markers when inspected in iTunes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes music is no longer DRM'ed, but each file downloaded still bears the name and email address of the person that purchased it.
Video files and apps are still under DRM though, as far as I know.
(They have FairPlay markers when inspected in iTunes)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735919</id>
	<title>With DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247830920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You always lose.  This is just another example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You always lose .
This is just another example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You always lose.
This is just another example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28757537</id>
	<title>The author predicted it</title>
	<author>trenton</author>
	<datestamp>1248111240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Books, also, were recalled and rewritten again and again, and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... [A]lways the reference was to slips, errors, misprints, or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

George Orwell. "Nineteen Eighty-Four." 1949.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Books , also , were recalled and rewritten again and again , and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made .
... [ A ] lways the reference was to slips , errors , misprints , or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy .
George Orwell .
" Nineteen Eighty-Four .
" 1949 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Books, also, were recalled and rewritten again and again, and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made.
... [A]lways the reference was to slips, errors, misprints, or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy.
George Orwell.
"Nineteen Eighty-Four.
" 1949.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739579</id>
	<title>In my day</title>
	<author>commandlinegamer</author>
	<datestamp>1247917380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We didn't have electronic deletion, let alone memory holes. We had to burn our books with flint and tinder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We did n't have electronic deletion , let alone memory holes .
We had to burn our books with flint and tinder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We didn't have electronic deletion, let alone memory holes.
We had to burn our books with flint and tinder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737007</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1247837940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mob is fickle, this will be forgotten in about a week by everyone who isn't a nerd, and then it's business as usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mob is fickle , this will be forgotten in about a week by everyone who is n't a nerd , and then it 's business as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mob is fickle, this will be forgotten in about a week by everyone who isn't a nerd, and then it's business as usual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737579</id>
	<title>Once again Slashdot posts stupid headlines.</title>
	<author>Domini</author>
	<datestamp>1247843040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Amazon did the right thing and according to their official <a href="http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm\_cd\_et\_md\_pl?\_encoding=UTF8&amp;cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&amp;cdMsgNo=39&amp;cdPage=2&amp;cdSort=oldest&amp;cdThread=Tx1J63DYFCB4FX2&amp;cdMsgID=Mx3NVHAKDOTC2DG#Mx3NVHAKDOTC2DG" title="amazon.com">response</a> [amazon.com]:</p><p>Amazon Kindle Customer Service says:<br>"These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books. When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers. We are changing our systems so that in the future, books will not be removed from customers' devices in these circumstances."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Amazon did the right thing and according to their official response [ amazon.com ] : Amazon Kindle Customer Service says : " These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books .
When we were notified of this by the rights holder , we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers ' devices , and refunded customers .
We are changing our systems so that in the future , books will not be removed from customers ' devices in these circumstances .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Amazon did the right thing and according to their official response [amazon.com]:Amazon Kindle Customer Service says:"These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books.
When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers.
We are changing our systems so that in the future, books will not be removed from customers' devices in these circumstances.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738461</id>
	<title>next step: modification</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1247855100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deletion is bad enough, I don't think I need to chime in with the other posters on that.</p><p>But think a little further. This also allows patching, just delete the old version and replace it with a new one, right? So 1984 has in fact become possible. Your books can not only vanish at any time, they can also change at any time.</p><p>Wait until we get our newspapers through electronic readers, and you'll see it happen. I bet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deletion is bad enough , I do n't think I need to chime in with the other posters on that.But think a little further .
This also allows patching , just delete the old version and replace it with a new one , right ?
So 1984 has in fact become possible .
Your books can not only vanish at any time , they can also change at any time.Wait until we get our newspapers through electronic readers , and you 'll see it happen .
I bet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deletion is bad enough, I don't think I need to chime in with the other posters on that.But think a little further.
This also allows patching, just delete the old version and replace it with a new one, right?
So 1984 has in fact become possible.
Your books can not only vanish at any time, they can also change at any time.Wait until we get our newspapers through electronic readers, and you'll see it happen.
I bet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28753509</id>
	<title>Re:only pirates win</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1248032940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do realize the author has been dead 60years right? That fact alone compels me to 'pirate' a copy.... No need for any extra reasons. Who exactly do you think you are supporting by giving amazon money?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize the author has been dead 60years right ?
That fact alone compels me to 'pirate ' a copy.... No need for any extra reasons .
Who exactly do you think you are supporting by giving amazon money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize the author has been dead 60years right?
That fact alone compels me to 'pirate' a copy.... No need for any extra reasons.
Who exactly do you think you are supporting by giving amazon money?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738405</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247853720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You bought and paid for something. Electronic or not, how do they have the right to take it away from you?"</p><p>you bought and paid for a *license* to the text. That license includes the ability for the owner of the original work to revoke said license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You bought and paid for something .
Electronic or not , how do they have the right to take it away from you ?
" you bought and paid for a * license * to the text .
That license includes the ability for the owner of the original work to revoke said license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You bought and paid for something.
Electronic or not, how do they have the right to take it away from you?
"you bought and paid for a *license* to the text.
That license includes the ability for the owner of the original work to revoke said license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737391</id>
	<title>Feedbooks</title>
	<author>jdwoods</author>
	<datestamp>1247841300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm are freely available from Project Gutenburg and from FeedBooks.</p><p>FeedBooks even has them nicely formatted for the Kindle and a very convenient catalog useable from the Kindle to download them at will. For more information, see: <a href="http://www.feedbooks.com/help/kindle" title="feedbooks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.feedbooks.com/help/kindle</a> [feedbooks.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Orwell 's 1984 and Animal Farm are freely available from Project Gutenburg and from FeedBooks.FeedBooks even has them nicely formatted for the Kindle and a very convenient catalog useable from the Kindle to download them at will .
For more information , see : http : //www.feedbooks.com/help/kindle [ feedbooks.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm are freely available from Project Gutenburg and from FeedBooks.FeedBooks even has them nicely formatted for the Kindle and a very convenient catalog useable from the Kindle to download them at will.
For more information, see: http://www.feedbooks.com/help/kindle [feedbooks.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739083</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247908620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey man, I think you've had enough.  I'll call a taxi.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey man , I think you 've had enough .
I 'll call a taxi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey man, I think you've had enough.
I'll call a taxi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</id>
	<title>Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247830920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems extremely shady legally.  You bought and paid for something.  Electronic or not, how do they have the right to take it away from you?  I could MAYBE understand if it was a subscription-based service in which you had access to a collection, but for them to take this away from someone who specifically bought the book seems legally dubious at best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems extremely shady legally .
You bought and paid for something .
Electronic or not , how do they have the right to take it away from you ?
I could MAYBE understand if it was a subscription-based service in which you had access to a collection , but for them to take this away from someone who specifically bought the book seems legally dubious at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems extremely shady legally.
You bought and paid for something.
Electronic or not, how do they have the right to take it away from you?
I could MAYBE understand if it was a subscription-based service in which you had access to a collection, but for them to take this away from someone who specifically bought the book seems legally dubious at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28746395</id>
	<title>Love Kindle2</title>
	<author>makemine</author>
	<datestamp>1247996460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love my Kindle2 and this concerns me a great deal. I would love to see a class action lawsuit against Amazon and the Publishers to put a stop to this practice immediately. They can&#195;(TM)t pull this stunt with a physical book so why should they be able to pull it with a digital book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love my Kindle2 and this concerns me a great deal .
I would love to see a class action lawsuit against Amazon and the Publishers to put a stop to this practice immediately .
They can   ( TM ) t pull this stunt with a physical book so why should they be able to pull it with a digital book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love my Kindle2 and this concerns me a great deal.
I would love to see a class action lawsuit against Amazon and the Publishers to put a stop to this practice immediately.
They canÃ(TM)t pull this stunt with a physical book so why should they be able to pull it with a digital book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737199</id>
	<title>live by the publishers?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1247839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nay, they do not entirely live by the will of the publishers. The customers are the other half of the equation. Bow out like this to enough publishers and they will end up killing the digital book market for themselves (as well as Kindle sales).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nay , they do not entirely live by the will of the publishers .
The customers are the other half of the equation .
Bow out like this to enough publishers and they will end up killing the digital book market for themselves ( as well as Kindle sales ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nay, they do not entirely live by the will of the publishers.
The customers are the other half of the equation.
Bow out like this to enough publishers and they will end up killing the digital book market for themselves (as well as Kindle sales).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736455</id>
	<title>Never!</title>
	<author>Charan</author>
	<datestamp>1247834160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are you talking about?  Amazon has never sold copies of 1984 or Animal Farm in digital format, and to suggest otherwise is treasonous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
Amazon has never sold copies of 1984 or Animal Farm in digital format , and to suggest otherwise is treasonous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?
Amazon has never sold copies of 1984 or Animal Farm in digital format, and to suggest otherwise is treasonous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741813</id>
	<title>Leave the Wireless OFF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247940840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like the way to go for Kindle users is to leave the wireless off at all times and upload your content with USB when needed.  AFAIK the can't do shit to your Kindle with the wireless off.  Am I wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the way to go for Kindle users is to leave the wireless off at all times and upload your content with USB when needed .
AFAIK the ca n't do shit to your Kindle with the wireless off .
Am I wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the way to go for Kindle users is to leave the wireless off at all times and upload your content with USB when needed.
AFAIK the can't do shit to your Kindle with the wireless off.
Am I wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738229</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247851140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Amendment. Amazon reserves the right to amend any of the terms of this Agreement at its sole discretion by posting the revised terms on the Kindle Store or the Amazon.com website. Your continued use of the Device and Software after the effective date of any such amendment shall be deemed your agreement to be bound by such amendment.</p></div></blockquote><p>It is a bit like all the 'privacy policies' - we promise to respect your privacy until we decide not to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amendment .
Amazon reserves the right to amend any of the terms of this Agreement at its sole discretion by posting the revised terms on the Kindle Store or the Amazon.com website .
Your continued use of the Device and Software after the effective date of any such amendment shall be deemed your agreement to be bound by such amendment.It is a bit like all the 'privacy policies ' - we promise to respect your privacy until we decide not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amendment.
Amazon reserves the right to amend any of the terms of this Agreement at its sole discretion by posting the revised terms on the Kindle Store or the Amazon.com website.
Your continued use of the Device and Software after the effective date of any such amendment shall be deemed your agreement to be bound by such amendment.It is a bit like all the 'privacy policies' - we promise to respect your privacy until we decide not to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737359</id>
	<title>Any more powerful symbols to muck up with?</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1247841000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>\_Now\_ how many people at Amazon's marketing wish they could stick the faces of some lawyers in a rat cage?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>\ _Now \ _ how many people at Amazon 's marketing wish they could stick the faces of some lawyers in a rat cage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>\_Now\_ how many people at Amazon's marketing wish they could stick the faces of some lawyers in a rat cage?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736341</id>
	<title>Stupid stupid stupid</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1247833500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm amazed at this. Not that some company wanted them to do it; but that Amazon did it. All comments about "big, evil corporations" aside - are they <i>trying</i> to kill the Kindle? Don't they see what a PR nightmare this could be?</p><p>Why on earth should I buy an expensive electronic book reader from them, EVER, when they've just demonstrated that I might have my legally-purchased books deleted at any time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm amazed at this .
Not that some company wanted them to do it ; but that Amazon did it .
All comments about " big , evil corporations " aside - are they trying to kill the Kindle ?
Do n't they see what a PR nightmare this could be ? Why on earth should I buy an expensive electronic book reader from them , EVER , when they 've just demonstrated that I might have my legally-purchased books deleted at any time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm amazed at this.
Not that some company wanted them to do it; but that Amazon did it.
All comments about "big, evil corporations" aside - are they trying to kill the Kindle?
Don't they see what a PR nightmare this could be?Why on earth should I buy an expensive electronic book reader from them, EVER, when they've just demonstrated that I might have my legally-purchased books deleted at any time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736465</id>
	<title>only pirates win</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1247834160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were one of the customers who had my book deleted, then I would feel entitled--even compelled--to download a DRM-free copy from the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were one of the customers who had my book deleted , then I would feel entitled--even compelled--to download a DRM-free copy from the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were one of the customers who had my book deleted, then I would feel entitled--even compelled--to download a DRM-free copy from the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736557</id>
	<title>When they pull Fahrenheit 451...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247834820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... will all Kindles go up in flames?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... will all Kindles go up in flames ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... will all Kindles go up in flames?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736309</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247833320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? You can't sell public domain works for profit? When's the last time you read a dead-tree book version of Shakespeare?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
You ca n't sell public domain works for profit ?
When 's the last time you read a dead-tree book version of Shakespeare ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
You can't sell public domain works for profit?
When's the last time you read a dead-tree book version of Shakespeare?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736229</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1247832840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except it's NOT in the license.  Quoted here in case it mysteriously changes:</p><blockquote><div><p>Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530&amp;#content" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530&amp;#content</a> [amazon.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except it 's NOT in the license .
Quoted here in case it mysteriously changes : Use of Digital Content .
Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon , Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view , use , and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times , solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal , non-commercial use .
Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon .
http : //www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html ? nodeId = 200144530&amp; # content [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except it's NOT in the license.
Quoted here in case it mysteriously changes:Use of Digital Content.
Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use.
Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530&amp;#content [amazon.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28745595</id>
	<title>I woke up this morning...</title>
	<author>sjdude</author>
	<datestamp>1247938800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I woke up this morning and... my <i>Kindle</i> was GONE!!! Oh well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I woke up this morning and... my Kindle was GONE ! ! !
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I woke up this morning and... my Kindle was GONE!!!
Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737341</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think comparison to buying stolen property, and your iPod analogy is inaccurate - especially since copyright laws and property laws - iuncluding posession of stolen property are handled very differently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think comparison to buying stolen property , and your iPod analogy is inaccurate - especially since copyright laws and property laws - iuncluding posession of stolen property are handled very differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think comparison to buying stolen property, and your iPod analogy is inaccurate - especially since copyright laws and property laws - iuncluding posession of stolen property are handled very differently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737967</id>
	<title>WTF???</title>
	<author>lotho brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1247847600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean I could've been in the middle of reading one of these books, go to bed one night, go to work the next day, then the next nite when I've got horrible, crippling insomnia, have completely deprived of book I was mentally engaged in with absolutely no notice?  I'd be really, really pissed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean I could 've been in the middle of reading one of these books , go to bed one night , go to work the next day , then the next nite when I 've got horrible , crippling insomnia , have completely deprived of book I was mentally engaged in with absolutely no notice ?
I 'd be really , really pissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean I could've been in the middle of reading one of these books, go to bed one night, go to work the next day, then the next nite when I've got horrible, crippling insomnia, have completely deprived of book I was mentally engaged in with absolutely no notice?
I'd be really, really pissed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736295</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247833260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"All sales are final" wouldn't exactly fly in court when this whole issue is about that Kindle sales quite obviously aren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" All sales are final " would n't exactly fly in court when this whole issue is about that Kindle sales quite obviously are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All sales are final" wouldn't exactly fly in court when this whole issue is about that Kindle sales quite obviously aren't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736281</id>
	<title>All Amazon.com customers and publishers are equal.</title>
	<author>MajikJon</author>
	<datestamp>1247833200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But some of them are more equal than others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But some of them are more equal than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But some of them are more equal than others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737215</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247839860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't accepting an EULA to read a book sound strange to you too?</p><p>Imagine Vatican had capability to remotely burn or change content of books back in medieval ages.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't accepting an EULA to read a book sound strange to you too ? Imagine Vatican had capability to remotely burn or change content of books back in medieval ages .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't accepting an EULA to read a book sound strange to you too?Imagine Vatican had capability to remotely burn or change content of books back in medieval ages.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736951</id>
	<title>Winston, welcome to 2009</title>
	<author>rogerdr</author>
	<datestamp>1247837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DRM, otherwise known as the Master Control Program, is a nifty tool for corporate kings (and their shills), but not the last one. What these companies are aiming for is eternal pay-for-play, when every view, listen, or use of media must be paid for instantly. It's not a conspiracy if they don't have to conspire. They all want it that way, so they don't even have to cooperate in secret. Hail Pirate Bay!</htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM , otherwise known as the Master Control Program , is a nifty tool for corporate kings ( and their shills ) , but not the last one .
What these companies are aiming for is eternal pay-for-play , when every view , listen , or use of media must be paid for instantly .
It 's not a conspiracy if they do n't have to conspire .
They all want it that way , so they do n't even have to cooperate in secret .
Hail Pirate Bay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM, otherwise known as the Master Control Program, is a nifty tool for corporate kings (and their shills), but not the last one.
What these companies are aiming for is eternal pay-for-play, when every view, listen, or use of media must be paid for instantly.
It's not a conspiracy if they don't have to conspire.
They all want it that way, so they don't even have to cooperate in secret.
Hail Pirate Bay!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736319</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>TaggartAleslayer</author>
	<datestamp>1247833380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't stress this enough to friends, coworkers, online buddies, and everyone I meet in airports toting Kindles. <br> <br>
When you download a book from Amazon on the Kindle, you are not purchasing the contents of the book. You are purchasing a license that allows you to view the contents of that book. Those contents may change due to online interaction, to put it in gamer terms for the local crowd here.<br> <br>
Does this put me off the Kindle? No. I think they are extremely nifty. Would I be pissed were I halfway through Animal Farm when it got yanked? Yes. Quite.<br> <br>
This is a Brave New World, friends. How we react is what defines the future of the medium. Marches?  Protests? Griping on a message board? Refusing to purchase it? Calling your Senator? All very valid responses. <br> <br>
I do wonder how many Kindle owners will throw them away after reading this. I also wonder how many of the loudest voices here in this forum actually own a Kindle and will cast it aside due to this startling turn of events...<br> <br>
My guess is that nothing changed today, and nothing will. <br> <br>
People speak loudest when they are least willing to act. Welcome to the farm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't stress this enough to friends , coworkers , online buddies , and everyone I meet in airports toting Kindles .
When you download a book from Amazon on the Kindle , you are not purchasing the contents of the book .
You are purchasing a license that allows you to view the contents of that book .
Those contents may change due to online interaction , to put it in gamer terms for the local crowd here .
Does this put me off the Kindle ?
No. I think they are extremely nifty .
Would I be pissed were I halfway through Animal Farm when it got yanked ?
Yes. Quite .
This is a Brave New World , friends .
How we react is what defines the future of the medium .
Marches ? Protests ?
Griping on a message board ?
Refusing to purchase it ?
Calling your Senator ?
All very valid responses .
I do wonder how many Kindle owners will throw them away after reading this .
I also wonder how many of the loudest voices here in this forum actually own a Kindle and will cast it aside due to this startling turn of events.. . My guess is that nothing changed today , and nothing will .
People speak loudest when they are least willing to act .
Welcome to the farm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't stress this enough to friends, coworkers, online buddies, and everyone I meet in airports toting Kindles.
When you download a book from Amazon on the Kindle, you are not purchasing the contents of the book.
You are purchasing a license that allows you to view the contents of that book.
Those contents may change due to online interaction, to put it in gamer terms for the local crowd here.
Does this put me off the Kindle?
No. I think they are extremely nifty.
Would I be pissed were I halfway through Animal Farm when it got yanked?
Yes. Quite.
This is a Brave New World, friends.
How we react is what defines the future of the medium.
Marches?  Protests?
Griping on a message board?
Refusing to purchase it?
Calling your Senator?
All very valid responses.
I do wonder how many Kindle owners will throw them away after reading this.
I also wonder how many of the loudest voices here in this forum actually own a Kindle and will cast it aside due to this startling turn of events... 
My guess is that nothing changed today, and nothing will.
People speak loudest when they are least willing to act.
Welcome to the farm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738993</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247950260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IGNORANCE IS <b>NOT</b> STRENGTH</p></div><p>What about retard strength?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IGNORANCE IS NOT STRENGTHWhat about retard strength ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IGNORANCE IS NOT STRENGTHWhat about retard strength?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738433</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247854440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>indefinite rental is more accurate.</p></div><p>Define "indefinite"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>indefinite rental is more accurate.Define " indefinite "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>indefinite rental is more accurate.Define "indefinite"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740705</id>
	<title>Steal this book</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1247931420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Download the full text for free and put it on your Kindle. And stop whining.</p><p><a href="http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt" title="gutenberg.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt</a> [gutenberg.net.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Download the full text for free and put it on your Kindle .
And stop whining.http : //gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt [ gutenberg.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Download the full text for free and put it on your Kindle.
And stop whining.http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt [gutenberg.net.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736079</id>
	<title>If I own it, I want it with me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247831940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I like to have my own copies of the PDF's on my own LOCAL storage period. I do NOT trust any global corporation to hold on to my stuff for me with free access to my files. Screw that.</p><p>The largest flaw with the kindle is that I can't just put my own files on it without going through some type of service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I like to have my own copies of the PDF 's on my own LOCAL storage period .
I do NOT trust any global corporation to hold on to my stuff for me with free access to my files .
Screw that.The largest flaw with the kindle is that I ca n't just put my own files on it without going through some type of service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I like to have my own copies of the PDF's on my own LOCAL storage period.
I do NOT trust any global corporation to hold on to my stuff for me with free access to my files.
Screw that.The largest flaw with the kindle is that I can't just put my own files on it without going through some type of service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736147</id>
	<title>Re:Legally, how?</title>
	<author>Bluecobra</author>
	<datestamp>1247832300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the policy is the same as Amazon's MP3 store, you are paying for the "license" to read a book and therefore you don't own the book.  Likewise, I don't own any of my MP3's from Amazon--I just have a license to listen to it.  And I'm sure Amazon holds the right to terminate a license anytime for any reason. It's just now they have the technical ability to do this on every Kindle device out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the policy is the same as Amazon 's MP3 store , you are paying for the " license " to read a book and therefore you do n't own the book .
Likewise , I do n't own any of my MP3 's from Amazon--I just have a license to listen to it .
And I 'm sure Amazon holds the right to terminate a license anytime for any reason .
It 's just now they have the technical ability to do this on every Kindle device out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the policy is the same as Amazon's MP3 store, you are paying for the "license" to read a book and therefore you don't own the book.
Likewise, I don't own any of my MP3's from Amazon--I just have a license to listen to it.
And I'm sure Amazon holds the right to terminate a license anytime for any reason.
It's just now they have the technical ability to do this on every Kindle device out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever The Party says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247842140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property. . . If you buy a stolen ipod, it can get confiscated by the police.</p></div><p>
IGNORANCE IS <b>NOT</b> STRENGTH
</p><p>
IDEAS ARE <b>NOT</b> PROPERTY
</p><p>
Taking an iPod from somebody <b> <em>deprives</em> that person of an iPod</b>.  Having an extra copy of a book <b>does not take <em>any</em>thing from <em>any</em>one</b>.  Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kindle customers have , in effect , been sold " stolen " property .
. .
If you buy a stolen ipod , it can get confiscated by the police .
IGNORANCE IS NOT STRENGTH IDEAS ARE NOT PROPERTY Taking an iPod from somebody deprives that person of an iPod .
Having an extra copy of a book does not take anything from anyone .
Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kindle customers have, in effect, been sold "stolen" property.
. .
If you buy a stolen ipod, it can get confiscated by the police.
IGNORANCE IS NOT STRENGTH

IDEAS ARE NOT PROPERTY

Taking an iPod from somebody  deprives that person of an iPod.
Having an extra copy of a book does not take anything from anyone.
Purchasing unauthorised copies is neither equivalent to nor even similar to stealing.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736391</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247833860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recognizing you are stating facts and I am not disputing them.</p><p>Consider I purchased a ebook on survival skills and just left for the Yukon, or on identifying poisonous snake for my trip across Africa, or on STDs and I'm dating Paris Hilton.  I act in good faith and NEED that source material.  Amazon is at fault, yet I bear the cost of their error.  Whatever the appropriate remedy, that pain should fall directly on Amazon and NOT on the consumer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recognizing you are stating facts and I am not disputing them.Consider I purchased a ebook on survival skills and just left for the Yukon , or on identifying poisonous snake for my trip across Africa , or on STDs and I 'm dating Paris Hilton .
I act in good faith and NEED that source material .
Amazon is at fault , yet I bear the cost of their error .
Whatever the appropriate remedy , that pain should fall directly on Amazon and NOT on the consumer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recognizing you are stating facts and I am not disputing them.Consider I purchased a ebook on survival skills and just left for the Yukon, or on identifying poisonous snake for my trip across Africa, or on STDs and I'm dating Paris Hilton.
I act in good faith and NEED that source material.
Amazon is at fault, yet I bear the cost of their error.
Whatever the appropriate remedy, that pain should fall directly on Amazon and NOT on the consumer!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28752849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28748297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28753509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28745935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28771953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28746825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28747075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28759209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28756645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28745579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_2138213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736783
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739547
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28745579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28753509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736399
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738321
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742787
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28747075
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740041
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739137
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739989
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738949
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739083
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28745935
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737479
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743011
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28748297
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739207
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28746825
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738993
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743327
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739631
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28752849
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28759209
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737399
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738201
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740457
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740781
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738689
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737861
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28771953
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738345
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740387
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28743227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736229
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737717
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28756645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738433
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28738495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28739033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28740443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28742023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28735963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28741307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28744141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28746395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_2138213.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28736341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_2138213.28737237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
