<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_13_0037246</id>
	<title>100 Years of Copyright Hysteria</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255435620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Nate Anderson pens a fine historical retrospective for Ars Technica: a look at <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words.ars">100 years of Big Content's fearmongering</a>, in their own words. There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?"). There was the photocopier after World War II. There was the VCR in the 1970s, which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves, avalanches, and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business. He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler &mdash; in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone. Then home taping of music, digital audio tape, MP3 players, and Napster, each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries; and so on up to date with DVRs, HD radio, and HDTV. Anderson concludes with a quote from copyright expert William Patry in his book <em>Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars</em>: "I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nate Anderson pens a fine historical retrospective for Ars Technica : a look at 100 years of Big Content 's fearmongering , in their own words .
There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ( " What of the national throat ?
Will it not weaken ?
What of the national chest ?
Will it not shrink ? " ) .
There was the photocopier after World War II .
There was the VCR in the 1970s , which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves , avalanches , and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business .
He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler    in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone .
Then home taping of music , digital audio tape , MP3 players , and Napster , each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries ; and so on up to date with DVRs , HD radio , and HDTV .
Anderson concludes with a quote from copyright expert William Patry in his book Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars : " I can not think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nate Anderson pens a fine historical retrospective for Ars Technica: a look at 100 years of Big Content's fearmongering, in their own words.
There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat?
Will it not weaken?
What of the national chest?
Will it not shrink?").
There was the photocopier after World War II.
There was the VCR in the 1970s, which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves, avalanches, and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business.
He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler — in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone.
Then home taping of music, digital audio tape, MP3 players, and Napster, each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries; and so on up to date with DVRs, HD radio, and HDTV.
Anderson concludes with a quote from copyright expert William Patry in his book Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars: "I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730563</id>
	<title>No he wasn't</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1255440780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider the number of pianos then and now.</p><p>Then add in the number of guitars, bass buitars, synth's, horns, every kind of drum; we have more musicians alive now than have lived before, PERIOD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the number of pianos then and now.Then add in the number of guitars , bass buitars , synth 's , horns , every kind of drum ; we have more musicians alive now than have lived before , PERIOD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the number of pianos then and now.Then add in the number of guitars, bass buitars, synth's, horns, every kind of drum; we have more musicians alive now than have lived before, PERIOD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730609</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa was right.</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1255441260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music. They still exist, obviously, but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did.</p></div><p>Yeah, after reading the Sousa piece it was shockingly levelheaded and highly rational.  He even admits he's an alarmist and that he has a biased view because of his personal stake in this.  The last paragraph included in the Ars image is downright prophetic:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It cannot be denied that the owners and inventors have shown wonderful aggressiveness and ingenuity in developing and exploiting these remarkable devices.  Their mechanism has been steadily and marvelously improved, and they have come into very extensive use.  And it must be admitted that where families lack time or inclination to acquire musical technic, and to hear public performances, the best of these machines supply a certain amount of satisfaction and pleasure.</p></div><p>He almost sounds like a cautious promoter or early adopter himself!  Unsurprisingly the Ars article only gives us the first sheet of a lengthy opinion that can be found <a href="http://www.phonozoic.net/n0155.htm" title="phonozoic.net">here</a> [phonozoic.net].  Good reading to realize that these debated issues today are nothing new.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music .
They still exist , obviously , but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did.Yeah , after reading the Sousa piece it was shockingly levelheaded and highly rational .
He even admits he 's an alarmist and that he has a biased view because of his personal stake in this .
The last paragraph included in the Ars image is downright prophetic : It can not be denied that the owners and inventors have shown wonderful aggressiveness and ingenuity in developing and exploiting these remarkable devices .
Their mechanism has been steadily and marvelously improved , and they have come into very extensive use .
And it must be admitted that where families lack time or inclination to acquire musical technic , and to hear public performances , the best of these machines supply a certain amount of satisfaction and pleasure.He almost sounds like a cautious promoter or early adopter himself !
Unsurprisingly the Ars article only gives us the first sheet of a lengthy opinion that can be found here [ phonozoic.net ] .
Good reading to realize that these debated issues today are nothing new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music.
They still exist, obviously, but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did.Yeah, after reading the Sousa piece it was shockingly levelheaded and highly rational.
He even admits he's an alarmist and that he has a biased view because of his personal stake in this.
The last paragraph included in the Ars image is downright prophetic:It cannot be denied that the owners and inventors have shown wonderful aggressiveness and ingenuity in developing and exploiting these remarkable devices.
Their mechanism has been steadily and marvelously improved, and they have come into very extensive use.
And it must be admitted that where families lack time or inclination to acquire musical technic, and to hear public performances, the best of these machines supply a certain amount of satisfaction and pleasure.He almost sounds like a cautious promoter or early adopter himself!
Unsurprisingly the Ars article only gives us the first sheet of a lengthy opinion that can be found here [phonozoic.net].
Good reading to realize that these debated issues today are nothing new.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what Thomas Jefferson (found of the democratic party) and James Madison (author of the Constitution) said about it:</p><p>"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.</p><p>"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."</p><p>Madison -</p><p>"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."   Sounds like Mr. Madison was talking about RIAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what Thomas Jefferson ( found of the democratic party ) and James Madison ( author of the Constitution ) said about it : " Stable ownership is the gift of social law , and is given late in the progress of society .
It would be curious then , if an idea , the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain , could , of natural right , be claimed in exclusive and stable property .
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property , it is the action of the thinking power called an idea , which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself ; but the moment it is divulged , it forces itself into the possession of every one , and the receiver can not dispossess himself of it .
" Its peculiar character , too , is that no one possesses the less , because every other possesses the whole of it .
He who receives an idea from me , receives instruction himself without lessening mine ; as he who lights his taper at mine , receives light without darkening me .
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe , for the moral and mutual instruction of man , and improvement of his condition , seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature , when she made them , like fire , expansible over all space , without lessening their density in any point , and like the air in which we breathe , move , and have our physical being , incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation .
Inventions then can not , in nature , be a subject of property .
" Madison - " But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only , if at all ; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly , will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent ; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself , in its original operation , may produce more evil than good .
" Sounds like Mr. Madison was talking about RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what Thomas Jefferson (found of the democratic party) and James Madison (author of the Constitution) said about it:"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.
It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
"Madison -"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.
"   Sounds like Mr. Madison was talking about RIAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730891</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of one!</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1255443480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."</p><p>DRM!</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></div><p>I guess it did provide <em>some</em> jobs to develop, e.g.,  HDCP.  I'd be hanging my head in shame if it were me, though. ("My children were starving, their clothes threadbare")  And its various ancestors, like error tracks, serial port dongles, little slide-rule-like spinny code-wheel things.  I guess the spinny-wheel was pretty cool compared to the rest of the examples.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I can not think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries .
" DRM ! Oh , wait...I guess it did provide some jobs to develop , e.g. , HDCP .
I 'd be hanging my head in shame if it were me , though .
( " My children were starving , their clothes threadbare " ) And its various ancestors , like error tracks , serial port dongles , little slide-rule-like spinny code-wheel things .
I guess the spinny-wheel was pretty cool compared to the rest of the examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.
"DRM!Oh, wait...I guess it did provide some jobs to develop, e.g.,  HDCP.
I'd be hanging my head in shame if it were me, though.
("My children were starving, their clothes threadbare")  And its various ancestors, like error tracks, serial port dongles, little slide-rule-like spinny code-wheel things.
I guess the spinny-wheel was pretty cool compared to the rest of the examples.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732371</id>
	<title>Re:Systematic copyright indoctrination</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1255451040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm wondering if that book is copyrighted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering if that book is copyrighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering if that book is copyrighted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731149</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of one!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255445100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While trying to be funny it is an interesting idea.  How to 'protect' an 'open' secret.  Then insure that only people you want get that 'secret'.   The main problem is once the secret is open and you have someone who is a double agent they could share the secret with others you do not want.  It is actually a fairly standard crypto analysis being researched today.</p><p>DRM is an application of it.  But it suffers from the same problem all cryptographically signed documents suffer from.  That once someone can decode it and you give the keys to the decoding to a double agent (pirates in the case of DRM) else everyone can do it.  Right now most DRM suffers from security thru obscurity.  'the keys are on a special place on the disk', 'the alg is burred in some firmware', 'you have to authenticate against some remote server to get a key'.  Notice all of those ways 'hide the key'.  It is just a matter of time before someone finds it.  DVDs were once touted as uncrackable, we know how that went.</p><p>Everyone is excited about downloading everything from the web.  I personally am not.  As it allows companies to digitally sign things only to you using paired keys.  Removing the second hand market from me.  Buy a crap movie/game/music?  Looking for that rare game from a company that went out of business 10 years ago?  I can no longer sell that to someone else and recoup my cost, or find easily interesting content that is out of date.  Mark my words right now downloadable content is cheap but once the 2nd hand market is gone the prices will rise back up to current and higher levels and locked behind digital walls.  You also better hope that the company doesnt 'give up' or 'go out of business'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While trying to be funny it is an interesting idea .
How to 'protect ' an 'open ' secret .
Then insure that only people you want get that 'secret' .
The main problem is once the secret is open and you have someone who is a double agent they could share the secret with others you do not want .
It is actually a fairly standard crypto analysis being researched today.DRM is an application of it .
But it suffers from the same problem all cryptographically signed documents suffer from .
That once someone can decode it and you give the keys to the decoding to a double agent ( pirates in the case of DRM ) else everyone can do it .
Right now most DRM suffers from security thru obscurity .
'the keys are on a special place on the disk ' , 'the alg is burred in some firmware ' , 'you have to authenticate against some remote server to get a key' .
Notice all of those ways 'hide the key' .
It is just a matter of time before someone finds it .
DVDs were once touted as uncrackable , we know how that went.Everyone is excited about downloading everything from the web .
I personally am not .
As it allows companies to digitally sign things only to you using paired keys .
Removing the second hand market from me .
Buy a crap movie/game/music ?
Looking for that rare game from a company that went out of business 10 years ago ?
I can no longer sell that to someone else and recoup my cost , or find easily interesting content that is out of date .
Mark my words right now downloadable content is cheap but once the 2nd hand market is gone the prices will rise back up to current and higher levels and locked behind digital walls .
You also better hope that the company doesnt 'give up ' or 'go out of business' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While trying to be funny it is an interesting idea.
How to 'protect' an 'open' secret.
Then insure that only people you want get that 'secret'.
The main problem is once the secret is open and you have someone who is a double agent they could share the secret with others you do not want.
It is actually a fairly standard crypto analysis being researched today.DRM is an application of it.
But it suffers from the same problem all cryptographically signed documents suffer from.
That once someone can decode it and you give the keys to the decoding to a double agent (pirates in the case of DRM) else everyone can do it.
Right now most DRM suffers from security thru obscurity.
'the keys are on a special place on the disk', 'the alg is burred in some firmware', 'you have to authenticate against some remote server to get a key'.
Notice all of those ways 'hide the key'.
It is just a matter of time before someone finds it.
DVDs were once touted as uncrackable, we know how that went.Everyone is excited about downloading everything from the web.
I personally am not.
As it allows companies to digitally sign things only to you using paired keys.
Removing the second hand market from me.
Buy a crap movie/game/music?
Looking for that rare game from a company that went out of business 10 years ago?
I can no longer sell that to someone else and recoup my cost, or find easily interesting content that is out of date.
Mark my words right now downloadable content is cheap but once the 2nd hand market is gone the prices will rise back up to current and higher levels and locked behind digital walls.
You also better hope that the company doesnt 'give up' or 'go out of business'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731463</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa had a point</title>
	<author>Doctor Faustus</author>
	<datestamp>1255446960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about SNL, but Chris Cornell sounds pretty similar live and on recording.  David Draimen from Disturbed does, too.  I've seen live footage of The Black Eyed Peas, and they seem to do pretty well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about SNL , but Chris Cornell sounds pretty similar live and on recording .
David Draimen from Disturbed does , too .
I 've seen live footage of The Black Eyed Peas , and they seem to do pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about SNL, but Chris Cornell sounds pretty similar live and on recording.
David Draimen from Disturbed does, too.
I've seen live footage of The Black Eyed Peas, and they seem to do pretty well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732325</id>
	<title>Re:What's being ignored</title>
	<author>darpo</author>
	<datestamp>1255450860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>the dam has quite literally broke</i>
<br> <br>
Um, no. Just, no. You fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the dam has quite literally broke Um , no .
Just , no .
You fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the dam has quite literally broke
 
Um, no.
Just, no.
You fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731065</id>
	<title>wow what a great quote</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1255444620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's pretty much the conceptualization of cyberspace, versus "meatspace", the real world, where if you own a car, and someone takes it, you've been deprived of a car: genuine stealing, as opposed to "stealing" digital content, which isn't stealing at all</p><p>we talk about how you can effortlessly copy a file and move it anywhere in any quantity at no difference in cost, and you would think this instantaneous sharing of digital content is some newfangled philosophical challenge brought about by the latest technological innovation. a concept that wasn't dramatic enough in societal impact before the internet to have much bearing on anyone's thinking</p><p>and here's this guy from the 200 years ago, when morse code was decades off far off science fiction, pretty much nailing the issue on the head. man those founding fathers were smart</p><p>i guess al gore has to step aside: thomas jefferson conceptualized the internet!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's pretty much the conceptualization of cyberspace , versus " meatspace " , the real world , where if you own a car , and someone takes it , you 've been deprived of a car : genuine stealing , as opposed to " stealing " digital content , which is n't stealing at allwe talk about how you can effortlessly copy a file and move it anywhere in any quantity at no difference in cost , and you would think this instantaneous sharing of digital content is some newfangled philosophical challenge brought about by the latest technological innovation .
a concept that was n't dramatic enough in societal impact before the internet to have much bearing on anyone 's thinkingand here 's this guy from the 200 years ago , when morse code was decades off far off science fiction , pretty much nailing the issue on the head .
man those founding fathers were smarti guess al gore has to step aside : thomas jefferson conceptualized the internet !
; -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's pretty much the conceptualization of cyberspace, versus "meatspace", the real world, where if you own a car, and someone takes it, you've been deprived of a car: genuine stealing, as opposed to "stealing" digital content, which isn't stealing at allwe talk about how you can effortlessly copy a file and move it anywhere in any quantity at no difference in cost, and you would think this instantaneous sharing of digital content is some newfangled philosophical challenge brought about by the latest technological innovation.
a concept that wasn't dramatic enough in societal impact before the internet to have much bearing on anyone's thinkingand here's this guy from the 200 years ago, when morse code was decades off far off science fiction, pretty much nailing the issue on the head.
man those founding fathers were smarti guess al gore has to step aside: thomas jefferson conceptualized the internet!
;-P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29736117</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1255424460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too think the SoundExchange is one of the worst things I've seen come about (especially since they have a minimum fee in order to even get started).<br> <br>
I did think of one thing though. SoundExchange can't interfere in licensing arrangements that are set up by the streamer and the license holder, meaning my friend could draft a contract license agreement to me to stream his music, and there isn't any money that goes to SoundExchange (from what I read).
Which means we need to set up an OpenExchange that allows artists to sell/give licensing agreements. <br> <br>
The artist could even have different licensing agreements (performance, streaming, personal use) along with downloads of their music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too think the SoundExchange is one of the worst things I 've seen come about ( especially since they have a minimum fee in order to even get started ) .
I did think of one thing though .
SoundExchange ca n't interfere in licensing arrangements that are set up by the streamer and the license holder , meaning my friend could draft a contract license agreement to me to stream his music , and there is n't any money that goes to SoundExchange ( from what I read ) .
Which means we need to set up an OpenExchange that allows artists to sell/give licensing agreements .
The artist could even have different licensing agreements ( performance , streaming , personal use ) along with downloads of their music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too think the SoundExchange is one of the worst things I've seen come about (especially since they have a minimum fee in order to even get started).
I did think of one thing though.
SoundExchange can't interfere in licensing arrangements that are set up by the streamer and the license holder, meaning my friend could draft a contract license agreement to me to stream his music, and there isn't any money that goes to SoundExchange (from what I read).
Which means we need to set up an OpenExchange that allows artists to sell/give licensing agreements.
The artist could even have different licensing agreements (performance, streaming, personal use) along with downloads of their music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732447</id>
	<title>umm</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1255451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?").</i>
<br>
<br>
Ummm...he was right, wasn't he?  <br>
<br>
And let's be honest here, in Sousa's time, and the century before, copyright infringement was rampant and frequently did have a serious financial impact on writers and composers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ( " What of the national throat ?
Will it not weaken ?
What of the national chest ?
Will it not shrink ? " ) .
Ummm...he was right , was n't he ?
And let 's be honest here , in Sousa 's time , and the century before , copyright infringement was rampant and frequently did have a serious financial impact on writers and composers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat?
Will it not weaken?
What of the national chest?
Will it not shrink?").
Ummm...he was right, wasn't he?
And let's be honest here, in Sousa's time, and the century before, copyright infringement was rampant and frequently did have a serious financial impact on writers and composers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730783</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa was right.</title>
	<author>Ikonoclasm</author>
	<datestamp>1255442700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who can afford the licensing fees to sit around and play music for friends? And if you didn't pay the fees, well, you're stealing from the artist-that's-long-dead's-children-that-continue-to-profit-from-work-they-never-performed! Think of the children!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who can afford the licensing fees to sit around and play music for friends ?
And if you did n't pay the fees , well , you 're stealing from the artist-that 's-long-dead 's-children-that-continue-to-profit-from-work-they-never-performed !
Think of the children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who can afford the licensing fees to sit around and play music for friends?
And if you didn't pay the fees, well, you're stealing from the artist-that's-long-dead's-children-that-continue-to-profit-from-work-they-never-performed!
Think of the children!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29735295</id>
	<title>RIAA Curve</title>
	<author>ComputerInsultant</author>
	<datestamp>1255464240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A single significant innovation: The RIAA Curve <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA\_equalization" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA\_equalization</a> [wikipedia.org] for correct playback of vinyl records.
<br> <br>
Now, of course, they did patent the RIAA equalization curve so that others would have to pay money to make their records sound good, but it was a significant innovation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A single significant innovation : The RIAA Curve http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA \ _equalization [ wikipedia.org ] for correct playback of vinyl records .
Now , of course , they did patent the RIAA equalization curve so that others would have to pay money to make their records sound good , but it was a significant innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A single significant innovation: The RIAA Curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA\_equalization [wikipedia.org] for correct playback of vinyl records.
Now, of course, they did patent the RIAA equalization curve so that others would have to pay money to make their records sound good, but it was a significant innovation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741217</id>
	<title>Re:JPS was right!</title>
	<author>Macgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1255456440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about 'Rock Band'?</p><p>The closest equivalent would be drunken signing of Tom Lehrer or Monthy Python after a bozzy Christmas party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about 'Rock Band ' ? The closest equivalent would be drunken signing of Tom Lehrer or Monthy Python after a bozzy Christmas party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about 'Rock Band'?The closest equivalent would be drunken signing of Tom Lehrer or Monthy Python after a bozzy Christmas party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730487</id>
	<title>Do not forget the systematic abuse of the law.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA use of stand-over tactics, mostly sanctioned by courts that failed the little man, is an innovation. . . . . . . They will be swept away in time and few will mourn their passing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA use of stand-over tactics , mostly sanctioned by courts that failed the little man , is an innovation .
. .
. .
. .
They will be swept away in time and few will mourn their passing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA use of stand-over tactics, mostly sanctioned by courts that failed the little man, is an innovation.
. .
. .
. .
They will be swept away in time and few will mourn their passing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730915</id>
	<title>Summary is ignorant FUD - not copyright related.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255443660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of the examples mentioned are related to copyright in the Slashdot sense of the word. There is ZERO support in the examples for doing away with copyright.</p><p>"There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?"). There was the photocopier after World War II. There was the VCR in the 1970s, which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves, avalanches, and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business. He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler &mdash; in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone. Then home taping of music, digital audio tape, MP3 players, and Napster, each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries; and so on up to date with DVRs, HD radio, and HDTV."</p><p>With the exception of Napster, that was shut down, and recording media, which in many nations carry a levy paid to the music industry, these are examples of luddites and those who fear new technology - not in any way related to the advantages or disadvantages of copyrights. You cannot read these examples and say "AHA, those are some good examples of why copyright is a bad thing".</p><p>The only possible justification for the title "Copyright Hysteria" is that "Some of the companies that have warned against new inventions have also had business models which depends on copyright" - which is a deceitful herring, because by far MOST companies rely in some way on copyrights. This is similar to saying "Copyright Bribes", and pointing to companies that have bribed developing nations WHILE AT THE SAME TIME depended on copyrights for their business model. WTF is up with the editor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of the examples mentioned are related to copyright in the Slashdot sense of the word .
There is ZERO support in the examples for doing away with copyright .
" There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ( " What of the national throat ?
Will it not weaken ?
What of the national chest ?
Will it not shrink ? " ) .
There was the photocopier after World War II .
There was the VCR in the 1970s , which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves , avalanches , and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business .
He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler    in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone .
Then home taping of music , digital audio tape , MP3 players , and Napster , each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries ; and so on up to date with DVRs , HD radio , and HDTV .
" With the exception of Napster , that was shut down , and recording media , which in many nations carry a levy paid to the music industry , these are examples of luddites and those who fear new technology - not in any way related to the advantages or disadvantages of copyrights .
You can not read these examples and say " AHA , those are some good examples of why copyright is a bad thing " .The only possible justification for the title " Copyright Hysteria " is that " Some of the companies that have warned against new inventions have also had business models which depends on copyright " - which is a deceitful herring , because by far MOST companies rely in some way on copyrights .
This is similar to saying " Copyright Bribes " , and pointing to companies that have bribed developing nations WHILE AT THE SAME TIME depended on copyrights for their business model .
WTF is up with the editor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of the examples mentioned are related to copyright in the Slashdot sense of the word.
There is ZERO support in the examples for doing away with copyright.
"There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat?
Will it not weaken?
What of the national chest?
Will it not shrink?").
There was the photocopier after World War II.
There was the VCR in the 1970s, which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves, avalanches, and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business.
He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler — in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone.
Then home taping of music, digital audio tape, MP3 players, and Napster, each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries; and so on up to date with DVRs, HD radio, and HDTV.
"With the exception of Napster, that was shut down, and recording media, which in many nations carry a levy paid to the music industry, these are examples of luddites and those who fear new technology - not in any way related to the advantages or disadvantages of copyrights.
You cannot read these examples and say "AHA, those are some good examples of why copyright is a bad thing".The only possible justification for the title "Copyright Hysteria" is that "Some of the companies that have warned against new inventions have also had business models which depends on copyright" - which is a deceitful herring, because by far MOST companies rely in some way on copyrights.
This is similar to saying "Copyright Bribes", and pointing to companies that have bribed developing nations WHILE AT THE SAME TIME depended on copyrights for their business model.
WTF is up with the editor?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730549</id>
	<title>Their problem now...</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1255440660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that they run their businesses like they're not subject to all the norms of business. They don't budget properly, do cost or quality control well, don't cater to niche markets well, don't treat their customers very well and often don't even know really what their customers will probably want.</p><p>If they would start doing some quality and cost control, treat their customers well and provide them the content whenever and wherever they want it (for a modest fee), the public's attitude toward piracy would be markedly different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that they run their businesses like they 're not subject to all the norms of business .
They do n't budget properly , do cost or quality control well , do n't cater to niche markets well , do n't treat their customers very well and often do n't even know really what their customers will probably want.If they would start doing some quality and cost control , treat their customers well and provide them the content whenever and wherever they want it ( for a modest fee ) , the public 's attitude toward piracy would be markedly different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that they run their businesses like they're not subject to all the norms of business.
They don't budget properly, do cost or quality control well, don't cater to niche markets well, don't treat their customers very well and often don't even know really what their customers will probably want.If they would start doing some quality and cost control, treat their customers well and provide them the content whenever and wherever they want it (for a modest fee), the public's attitude toward piracy would be markedly different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731111</id>
	<title>Re:What's being ignored</title>
	<author>dascandy</author>
	<datestamp>1255444860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theft: Removing something that wasn't in your posession, in order to have the advantages for yourself and accepting that you are depriving somebody else from their advantages.<br>Embezzlement: Removing something that was in your posession but not yours, in order to have the advantages for yourself and accepting that you are depriving somebody else from their advantages.<br>Copying (music, video, software etc.): Making a copy of something, in order to have the advantages yourself, without depriving anybody else from their advantages.</p><p>No, sorry, this isn't theft. It isn't even embezzlement. When you steal my car, I am without a car. When you embezzle the money I lent you, I'm left without that money. When you copy my software, I still have everything I had before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theft : Removing something that was n't in your posession , in order to have the advantages for yourself and accepting that you are depriving somebody else from their advantages.Embezzlement : Removing something that was in your posession but not yours , in order to have the advantages for yourself and accepting that you are depriving somebody else from their advantages.Copying ( music , video , software etc .
) : Making a copy of something , in order to have the advantages yourself , without depriving anybody else from their advantages.No , sorry , this is n't theft .
It is n't even embezzlement .
When you steal my car , I am without a car .
When you embezzle the money I lent you , I 'm left without that money .
When you copy my software , I still have everything I had before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theft: Removing something that wasn't in your posession, in order to have the advantages for yourself and accepting that you are depriving somebody else from their advantages.Embezzlement: Removing something that was in your posession but not yours, in order to have the advantages for yourself and accepting that you are depriving somebody else from their advantages.Copying (music, video, software etc.
): Making a copy of something, in order to have the advantages yourself, without depriving anybody else from their advantages.No, sorry, this isn't theft.
It isn't even embezzlement.
When you steal my car, I am without a car.
When you embezzle the money I lent you, I'm left without that money.
When you copy my software, I still have everything I had before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733743</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255457400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thine forefathers, sire, are blatant communists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thine forefathers , sire , are blatant communists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thine forefathers, sire, are blatant communists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731725</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1255448280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IP holders are a culture unlike any the world has seen before.  Fortunately, we have antibiotics.  That culture can be destroyed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IP holders are a culture unlike any the world has seen before .
Fortunately , we have antibiotics .
That culture can be destroyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP holders are a culture unlike any the world has seen before.
Fortunately, we have antibiotics.
That culture can be destroyed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730561</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255440780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Once they grow up, copyrights will have virtually no meaning for the average person in society.</i></p><p>Until the RIAA demands compensation to the tune of $2,500 per song. And you forget, America has more lawyers than any other nation in the world. It's not like <i>they</i> are going to tell the **IAs to stop suing people named "Doe" who can't possibly afford to pay multi-thousand dollar judgments. That's taking away billable hours, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once they grow up , copyrights will have virtually no meaning for the average person in society.Until the RIAA demands compensation to the tune of $ 2,500 per song .
And you forget , America has more lawyers than any other nation in the world .
It 's not like they are going to tell the * * IAs to stop suing people named " Doe " who ca n't possibly afford to pay multi-thousand dollar judgments .
That 's taking away billable hours , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once they grow up, copyrights will have virtually no meaning for the average person in society.Until the RIAA demands compensation to the tune of $2,500 per song.
And you forget, America has more lawyers than any other nation in the world.
It's not like they are going to tell the **IAs to stop suing people named "Doe" who can't possibly afford to pay multi-thousand dollar judgments.
That's taking away billable hours, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730853</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1255443240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are probably right, but as long as the laws remain on the books some of these people are going to get the occasional very nasty surprise when they find out, the hard way, that copyright really does exist and really does affect them.  Five years ago I na&#239;vely thought that there would be a huge backlash against the RIAA lawsuits, and that would force a revision of the laws involved.  It never happened, and now I am not convinced that it will ever happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are probably right , but as long as the laws remain on the books some of these people are going to get the occasional very nasty surprise when they find out , the hard way , that copyright really does exist and really does affect them .
Five years ago I na   vely thought that there would be a huge backlash against the RIAA lawsuits , and that would force a revision of the laws involved .
It never happened , and now I am not convinced that it will ever happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are probably right, but as long as the laws remain on the books some of these people are going to get the occasional very nasty surprise when they find out, the hard way, that copyright really does exist and really does affect them.
Five years ago I naïvely thought that there would be a huge backlash against the RIAA lawsuits, and that would force a revision of the laws involved.
It never happened, and now I am not convinced that it will ever happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731283</id>
	<title>JPS was right!</title>
	<author>Gort's Cranium</author>
	<datestamp>1255445940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?").</p></div><p>When was the last time you gathered around the family piano to sing? And no, karaoke does not count as the modern equivalent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ( " What of the national throat ?
Will it not weaken ?
What of the national chest ?
Will it not shrink ?
" ) .When was the last time you gathered around the family piano to sing ?
And no , karaoke does not count as the modern equivalent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat?
Will it not weaken?
What of the national chest?
Will it not shrink?
").When was the last time you gathered around the family piano to sing?
And no, karaoke does not count as the modern equivalent.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731011</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255444260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;they need the permission by snail mail. YIkes!</p><p>Well that's really fair to the original artist.  He gets about 1 penny per song sold, but must spend 40 cents mailing-out permission forms to let people use his songs in college or high school.</p><p>I suppose one solution is to tell the students, "If you insist upon a piece-of-paper then you're going to pay for it.  40 cents for postage plus 40 cents for paypal fees.  Make it an even 1 dollar.  -OR-  Just take this email as your permission.  Your choice."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; they need the permission by snail mail .
YIkes ! Well that 's really fair to the original artist .
He gets about 1 penny per song sold , but must spend 40 cents mailing-out permission forms to let people use his songs in college or high school.I suppose one solution is to tell the students , " If you insist upon a piece-of-paper then you 're going to pay for it .
40 cents for postage plus 40 cents for paypal fees .
Make it an even 1 dollar .
-OR- Just take this email as your permission .
Your choice .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;they need the permission by snail mail.
YIkes!Well that's really fair to the original artist.
He gets about 1 penny per song sold, but must spend 40 cents mailing-out permission forms to let people use his songs in college or high school.I suppose one solution is to tell the students, "If you insist upon a piece-of-paper then you're going to pay for it.
40 cents for postage plus 40 cents for paypal fees.
Make it an even 1 dollar.
-OR-  Just take this email as your permission.
Your choice.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730633</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1255441440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The RIAA (and later the MPAA,) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients' business turf, right up until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that they're actually preventing their client's from making more money than if they kept their head in the sand.</p><p>If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.</p><p>They are a creation dating from before the invention of democracy and all they have ever done is behave like it.</p></div><p>It's easy to persuade people into harming themselves, just play on their ignorance and pride, tell them that it <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1401263&amp;cid=29717889" title="slashdot.org">"harms the economy"</a> [slashdot.org] and they'll run miles for you.<br>
&nbsp; <br>About harming the economy. Whose economy? Mine or yours? (not you crovira, I'm referring to RIAA, MPAA etc.) Because from my perspective it seems to be a good deal. And if you're telling me that music or movies or even culture will stop to exist, I have a feeling you're just full of fucking shit and I'm willing to bet you any sum you want on the opposite. Now nobody in the industry would ever dare to make that bet since they know that they are just -- that's right -- full of shit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA ( and later the MPAA , ) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients ' business turf , right up until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that they 're actually preventing their client 's from making more money than if they kept their head in the sand.If it was up to the * * AAs , we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.They are a creation dating from before the invention of democracy and all they have ever done is behave like it.It 's easy to persuade people into harming themselves , just play on their ignorance and pride , tell them that it " harms the economy " [ slashdot.org ] and they 'll run miles for you .
  About harming the economy .
Whose economy ?
Mine or yours ?
( not you crovira , I 'm referring to RIAA , MPAA etc .
) Because from my perspective it seems to be a good deal .
And if you 're telling me that music or movies or even culture will stop to exist , I have a feeling you 're just full of fucking shit and I 'm willing to bet you any sum you want on the opposite .
Now nobody in the industry would ever dare to make that bet since they know that they are just -- that 's right -- full of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA (and later the MPAA,) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients' business turf, right up until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that they're actually preventing their client's from making more money than if they kept their head in the sand.If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.They are a creation dating from before the invention of democracy and all they have ever done is behave like it.It's easy to persuade people into harming themselves, just play on their ignorance and pride, tell them that it "harms the economy" [slashdot.org] and they'll run miles for you.
  About harming the economy.
Whose economy?
Mine or yours?
(not you crovira, I'm referring to RIAA, MPAA etc.
) Because from my perspective it seems to be a good deal.
And if you're telling me that music or movies or even culture will stop to exist, I have a feeling you're just full of fucking shit and I'm willing to bet you any sum you want on the opposite.
Now nobody in the industry would ever dare to make that bet since they know that they are just -- that's right -- full of shit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731101</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255444800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This hysteria is not confined to copyright issues. I've noticed that whenever people foresee (either accurately or not) the possibility of future reduced income they naturally argue vigorously for steps to preserve their income. Realizing that arguments about their own loss of income aren't likely to sway others they invariably spout what I call the "END OF CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT" argument.<br>Right now health insurers are making similar claims about proposals to reform the US health care system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This hysteria is not confined to copyright issues .
I 've noticed that whenever people foresee ( either accurately or not ) the possibility of future reduced income they naturally argue vigorously for steps to preserve their income .
Realizing that arguments about their own loss of income are n't likely to sway others they invariably spout what I call the " END OF CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT " argument.Right now health insurers are making similar claims about proposals to reform the US health care system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This hysteria is not confined to copyright issues.
I've noticed that whenever people foresee (either accurately or not) the possibility of future reduced income they naturally argue vigorously for steps to preserve their income.
Realizing that arguments about their own loss of income aren't likely to sway others they invariably spout what I call the "END OF CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT" argument.Right now health insurers are making similar claims about proposals to reform the US health care system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732001</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright is not about innovation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it humorous that I share common ground with you on every single issue except for those relating to copyright.  Sure, I know you can't differentiate me with the legion of other Anonymous Cowards on this site, and at some point I might make myself known here, but that's beside the point.  Actually, this whole thing is an aside before I get into my main point, but still...  I really wanted to disagree with your post, but I find that the quote you mentioned is ambiguous enough that your interpretation is valid.  As it stands, I am in complete agreement with you.</p><p>That said, my hangup is with the phrase "owes its origins to".  Certainly if he means "was created by" then your point stands.  However, could it also mean "indirectly brought about its creation"?  If so, consider the cassette tape.  VHS and audio cassettes were vilified by the copyright industry; the whole point of the article.  Sure, the innovators behind these media acted on the consumers' desire for a more convenient means of enjoying copyrighted works, but can it really "owe its origins to" an industry that initially fought it?</p><p>Interestingly enough, before Sony got into the copyright industry through Sony Pictures and Sony Music, their BetaMax format was the target of a court case brought on by Universal, again part of this article's point.  Now, the two companies are part of a consortium for DVD and BluRay standards, as you mentioned.  That's the weird side effect of conglomerates: two completely different industries serviced by a single corporation.  Unilever is a conglomerate that makes, among other products, Ben and Jerry's ice cream and Dove soap.  I know this is a bad analogy, but would an innovation in soap moisturizers have any bearing on the production of ice cream?  What if that compound happened be an emulsifier for a frozen custard?  Optical disks could go either way; I don't know enough of their history to determine whether they spawned from computer disks (both hard and floppy) or cassette tapes (both audio and video).</p><p>Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you on this, but I can at least raise a few (arguably) interesting questions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it humorous that I share common ground with you on every single issue except for those relating to copyright .
Sure , I know you ca n't differentiate me with the legion of other Anonymous Cowards on this site , and at some point I might make myself known here , but that 's beside the point .
Actually , this whole thing is an aside before I get into my main point , but still... I really wanted to disagree with your post , but I find that the quote you mentioned is ambiguous enough that your interpretation is valid .
As it stands , I am in complete agreement with you.That said , my hangup is with the phrase " owes its origins to " .
Certainly if he means " was created by " then your point stands .
However , could it also mean " indirectly brought about its creation " ?
If so , consider the cassette tape .
VHS and audio cassettes were vilified by the copyright industry ; the whole point of the article .
Sure , the innovators behind these media acted on the consumers ' desire for a more convenient means of enjoying copyrighted works , but can it really " owe its origins to " an industry that initially fought it ? Interestingly enough , before Sony got into the copyright industry through Sony Pictures and Sony Music , their BetaMax format was the target of a court case brought on by Universal , again part of this article 's point .
Now , the two companies are part of a consortium for DVD and BluRay standards , as you mentioned .
That 's the weird side effect of conglomerates : two completely different industries serviced by a single corporation .
Unilever is a conglomerate that makes , among other products , Ben and Jerry 's ice cream and Dove soap .
I know this is a bad analogy , but would an innovation in soap moisturizers have any bearing on the production of ice cream ?
What if that compound happened be an emulsifier for a frozen custard ?
Optical disks could go either way ; I do n't know enough of their history to determine whether they spawned from computer disks ( both hard and floppy ) or cassette tapes ( both audio and video ) .Like I said , I 'm not disagreeing with you on this , but I can at least raise a few ( arguably ) interesting questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it humorous that I share common ground with you on every single issue except for those relating to copyright.
Sure, I know you can't differentiate me with the legion of other Anonymous Cowards on this site, and at some point I might make myself known here, but that's beside the point.
Actually, this whole thing is an aside before I get into my main point, but still...  I really wanted to disagree with your post, but I find that the quote you mentioned is ambiguous enough that your interpretation is valid.
As it stands, I am in complete agreement with you.That said, my hangup is with the phrase "owes its origins to".
Certainly if he means "was created by" then your point stands.
However, could it also mean "indirectly brought about its creation"?
If so, consider the cassette tape.
VHS and audio cassettes were vilified by the copyright industry; the whole point of the article.
Sure, the innovators behind these media acted on the consumers' desire for a more convenient means of enjoying copyrighted works, but can it really "owe its origins to" an industry that initially fought it?Interestingly enough, before Sony got into the copyright industry through Sony Pictures and Sony Music, their BetaMax format was the target of a court case brought on by Universal, again part of this article's point.
Now, the two companies are part of a consortium for DVD and BluRay standards, as you mentioned.
That's the weird side effect of conglomerates: two completely different industries serviced by a single corporation.
Unilever is a conglomerate that makes, among other products, Ben and Jerry's ice cream and Dove soap.
I know this is a bad analogy, but would an innovation in soap moisturizers have any bearing on the production of ice cream?
What if that compound happened be an emulsifier for a frozen custard?
Optical disks could go either way; I don't know enough of their history to determine whether they spawned from computer disks (both hard and floppy) or cassette tapes (both audio and video).Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you on this, but I can at least raise a few (arguably) interesting questions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730623</id>
	<title>The money well.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255441380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."</p><p>I can't think of anything that owes it's origin to the banks, advertising, or distribution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I can not think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries .
" I ca n't think of anything that owes it 's origin to the banks , advertising , or distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.
"I can't think of anything that owes it's origin to the banks, advertising, or distribution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732445</id>
	<title>Re:Systematic copyright indoctrination</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In grad school I listened to an outside speaker come in and say that the institution of copyright was created to make sure that companies make money.</i></p><p>In GRAD SCHOOL??? If this school is in the US, please let us know its name so we or our kids won't be tempted to enroll in this place. It would be bad enough in an undergrad setting, but sheesh... copyright in the US was to protect artists from publishers, not the other way around. Unfortunately in the 20th century this got turned on its head, and now copyright mostly benefits publishers and indeed maximises their profits, but that's not why copyright was started (in the US, of course, YMMV in other countries). The Constitution spells out why it was allowed: "to promote the sciences and useful arts".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In grad school I listened to an outside speaker come in and say that the institution of copyright was created to make sure that companies make money.In GRAD SCHOOL ? ? ?
If this school is in the US , please let us know its name so we or our kids wo n't be tempted to enroll in this place .
It would be bad enough in an undergrad setting , but sheesh... copyright in the US was to protect artists from publishers , not the other way around .
Unfortunately in the 20th century this got turned on its head , and now copyright mostly benefits publishers and indeed maximises their profits , but that 's not why copyright was started ( in the US , of course , YMMV in other countries ) .
The Constitution spells out why it was allowed : " to promote the sciences and useful arts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In grad school I listened to an outside speaker come in and say that the institution of copyright was created to make sure that companies make money.In GRAD SCHOOL???
If this school is in the US, please let us know its name so we or our kids won't be tempted to enroll in this place.
It would be bad enough in an undergrad setting, but sheesh... copyright in the US was to protect artists from publishers, not the other way around.
Unfortunately in the 20th century this got turned on its head, and now copyright mostly benefits publishers and indeed maximises their profits, but that's not why copyright was started (in the US, of course, YMMV in other countries).
The Constitution spells out why it was allowed: "to promote the sciences and useful arts".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730823</id>
	<title>Re:No he wasn't</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1255443000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider the number of pianos then and now.</p><p>Then add in the number of guitars, bass buitars, synth's, horns, every kind of drum; we have more musicians alive now than have lived before, PERIOD.</p></div><p>I think you are making a mistake in this analysis.  There are probably more musicians alive now then ever before.  There are also more men, women, Chinese men, English women, etc.  But unlike commonality of men (still about 1 to 1 w.r.t. women), the commonality of musicians playing live in small venues has decreased.  And you know that the practice of gathering around the piano (or its modern equivalent, the "buitar") to sing with family or friends has receded.  Do you do it at your house?  If you do, I bet you would be considered unusual (not necessarily in a bad way) in your neighborhood.  We do have more access to more musicians through recordings, and even more through broadcast recordings.  But they're not friends and family like Sousa meant.</p><p>As to the shrinking of the chest, we can only thank our lucky stars that Sousa was just blowing smoke, whistling in the wind (insert your Ecclesiastical metaphor here).  Naturally he couldn't have predicted changes in nutrition and availability of breast augmentation.</p><p>Oops. Almost forgot.  <b> <em>P-E-R-I-O-D</em> </b>!!!1!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the number of pianos then and now.Then add in the number of guitars , bass buitars , synth 's , horns , every kind of drum ; we have more musicians alive now than have lived before , PERIOD.I think you are making a mistake in this analysis .
There are probably more musicians alive now then ever before .
There are also more men , women , Chinese men , English women , etc .
But unlike commonality of men ( still about 1 to 1 w.r.t .
women ) , the commonality of musicians playing live in small venues has decreased .
And you know that the practice of gathering around the piano ( or its modern equivalent , the " buitar " ) to sing with family or friends has receded .
Do you do it at your house ?
If you do , I bet you would be considered unusual ( not necessarily in a bad way ) in your neighborhood .
We do have more access to more musicians through recordings , and even more through broadcast recordings .
But they 're not friends and family like Sousa meant.As to the shrinking of the chest , we can only thank our lucky stars that Sousa was just blowing smoke , whistling in the wind ( insert your Ecclesiastical metaphor here ) .
Naturally he could n't have predicted changes in nutrition and availability of breast augmentation.Oops .
Almost forgot .
P-E-R-I-O-D ! !
! 1 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the number of pianos then and now.Then add in the number of guitars, bass buitars, synth's, horns, every kind of drum; we have more musicians alive now than have lived before, PERIOD.I think you are making a mistake in this analysis.
There are probably more musicians alive now then ever before.
There are also more men, women, Chinese men, English women, etc.
But unlike commonality of men (still about 1 to 1 w.r.t.
women), the commonality of musicians playing live in small venues has decreased.
And you know that the practice of gathering around the piano (or its modern equivalent, the "buitar") to sing with family or friends has receded.
Do you do it at your house?
If you do, I bet you would be considered unusual (not necessarily in a bad way) in your neighborhood.
We do have more access to more musicians through recordings, and even more through broadcast recordings.
But they're not friends and family like Sousa meant.As to the shrinking of the chest, we can only thank our lucky stars that Sousa was just blowing smoke, whistling in the wind (insert your Ecclesiastical metaphor here).
Naturally he couldn't have predicted changes in nutrition and availability of breast augmentation.Oops.
Almost forgot.
P-E-R-I-O-D !!
!1!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731317</id>
	<title>Copyrights need to be eliminated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyrights and patents need to be eliminated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyrights and patents need to be eliminated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyrights and patents need to be eliminated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29735723</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>Wildclaw</author>
	<datestamp>1255466160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ideally a copyright would be exactly the bare minimum that was required to get the author to create his work</p></div><p>Why is it that one question is always forgotten when talking about copyright incentives. And that would be, "Do we need to have that specific work created in the first place?". Do we need xxxxx number of songs produced yearly, or could we make do with less, in favor of spending more resources elsewhere instead.</p><p>Always remember that the real cost of copyright is the reduced spread of information. Sure, we may get more information produced, but the total spread of that information goes down. Is the information that gets produced via copyright so much better that it is worth the cost?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally a copyright would be exactly the bare minimum that was required to get the author to create his workWhy is it that one question is always forgotten when talking about copyright incentives .
And that would be , " Do we need to have that specific work created in the first place ? " .
Do we need xxxxx number of songs produced yearly , or could we make do with less , in favor of spending more resources elsewhere instead.Always remember that the real cost of copyright is the reduced spread of information .
Sure , we may get more information produced , but the total spread of that information goes down .
Is the information that gets produced via copyright so much better that it is worth the cost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally a copyright would be exactly the bare minimum that was required to get the author to create his workWhy is it that one question is always forgotten when talking about copyright incentives.
And that would be, "Do we need to have that specific work created in the first place?".
Do we need xxxxx number of songs produced yearly, or could we make do with less, in favor of spending more resources elsewhere instead.Always remember that the real cost of copyright is the reduced spread of information.
Sure, we may get more information produced, but the total spread of that information goes down.
Is the information that gets produced via copyright so much better that it is worth the cost?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730471</id>
	<title>That quote at the end</title>
	<author>TeslaBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1255440060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Got to love that quote at the end. No-one makes music (or not) because they expect financial compensation. This is not true with movies, and perhaps that's why most suck. I would not lend Michael Bay $1 to make a movie, let alone give him $20M</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Got to love that quote at the end .
No-one makes music ( or not ) because they expect financial compensation .
This is not true with movies , and perhaps that 's why most suck .
I would not lend Michael Bay $ 1 to make a movie , let alone give him $ 20M</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got to love that quote at the end.
No-one makes music (or not) because they expect financial compensation.
This is not true with movies, and perhaps that's why most suck.
I would not lend Michael Bay $1 to make a movie, let alone give him $20M
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>im just cannonfodder</author>
	<datestamp>1255440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.<br>
<br>
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the corporate globalists from bad press.<br>
<br>
<br>
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:<br>
<br>
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment<br>
# Warner Music Group<br>
# Universal Music Group<br>
# EMI<br>
<br> <br>
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:<br>
<br>
# Sony Pictures<br>
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)<br>
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)<br>
# The Walt Disney Company<br>
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)<br>
# Paramount Pictures Viacom--(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)<br>
<br>

<br>
============<br>
<br>
<br>
If Sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:<br>
<br>
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.<br>
<br>

<br>
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio <br>
<a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml</a> [slashdot.org] <br>
<br>
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132" title="dailykos.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132</a> [dailykos.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA , these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways , purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony , why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore .
Name and shame the companies as all the * * AA trade group name is for is to protect the corporate globalists from bad press .
RIAA , CRIA , SOUNDEXCHANGE , BPI , IFPI , Ect : # Sony BMG Music Entertainment # Warner Music Group # Universal Music Group # EMI MPAA , MPA , FACT , AFACT , Ect : # Sony Pictures # Warner Bros. ( Time Warner ) # Universal Studios ( NBC Universal ) # The Walt Disney Company # 20th Century Fox ( News Corporation ) # Paramount Pictures Viacom-- ( DreamWorks owners since February 2006 ) = = = = = = = = = = = = If Sony payola ( google it ) was n't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this : Is it justified to steal from thieves ?
READ ON .
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio http : //slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml [ slashdot.org ] " With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations , would n't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels ' music and focus on independent artists ?
Sounds good , except that the RIAA 's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist , no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not .
'SoundExchange ( the RIAA ) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license .
If any artist records a song , SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio .
Artists can offer to download their music for free , but they can not offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money .
If a label or artist wants their share of the money , they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties .
' " http : //www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132 [ dailykos.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the corporate globalists from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:

# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
 
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:

# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom--(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)



============


If Sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:

Is it justified to steal from thieves?
READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio 
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml [slashdot.org] 

"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists?
Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not.
'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license.
If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio.
Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money.
If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.
'"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132 [dailykos.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730485</id>
	<title>and he was right</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1255440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music</i></p><p>you got to admit it, the guy predicted that correctly!</p><p>The others referenced in the summary, not so good. The music industry didn't implode after cassette tapes appeared, there's no reason to think the movie industry will implode now bittorrent's appeared either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing musicyou got to admit it , the guy predicted that correctly ! The others referenced in the summary , not so good .
The music industry did n't implode after cassette tapes appeared , there 's no reason to think the movie industry will implode now bittorrent 's appeared either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing musicyou got to admit it, the guy predicted that correctly!The others referenced in the summary, not so good.
The music industry didn't implode after cassette tapes appeared, there's no reason to think the movie industry will implode now bittorrent's appeared either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730971</id>
	<title>Do Away With Copyrights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255443960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, copyrights and patents need to be done away with.  Why should it be justified that writers, singers, computer programers, etc., do some work once, and then magically reproduce it over and over and over, without really working, and they get paid as if they did that work all over again.</p><p>For example.  I have a friend who just wrote a program.  He gets paid $20 a copy, per year.  He has sold $5,000 copies, so he makes $100,000 a year, without really doing anything.  The initial time he spent on the program was a year.  If he were anyone else, he would get $100,000 for his initial work, and then if he wanted to make another $100,000 dollars, he would have to keep working just as hard, for another year.</p><p>It only makes complete sense to require singers to actually perform, in concert, or in the studio, if they want to get paid.  Writers should get paid for their time actually writing, and computer programmers should only get paid for their time actually programming.  Inventors should get paid for a product produced, and not be allowed to own patents for ideas.</p><p>Copyrights and patents are unfair, and cater to a small portion of society.   Copyrights and patents treat certain industries as if their time is somehow more valuable than the average person.</p><p>Please note, I am an inventor and a computer programmer.  Also, most patents and copyrights belong to big companies, and not the individual that came up with the idea or material, so in that sense, the idea of patents and copyrights has failed anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , copyrights and patents need to be done away with .
Why should it be justified that writers , singers , computer programers , etc. , do some work once , and then magically reproduce it over and over and over , without really working , and they get paid as if they did that work all over again.For example .
I have a friend who just wrote a program .
He gets paid $ 20 a copy , per year .
He has sold $ 5,000 copies , so he makes $ 100,000 a year , without really doing anything .
The initial time he spent on the program was a year .
If he were anyone else , he would get $ 100,000 for his initial work , and then if he wanted to make another $ 100,000 dollars , he would have to keep working just as hard , for another year.It only makes complete sense to require singers to actually perform , in concert , or in the studio , if they want to get paid .
Writers should get paid for their time actually writing , and computer programmers should only get paid for their time actually programming .
Inventors should get paid for a product produced , and not be allowed to own patents for ideas.Copyrights and patents are unfair , and cater to a small portion of society .
Copyrights and patents treat certain industries as if their time is somehow more valuable than the average person.Please note , I am an inventor and a computer programmer .
Also , most patents and copyrights belong to big companies , and not the individual that came up with the idea or material , so in that sense , the idea of patents and copyrights has failed anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, copyrights and patents need to be done away with.
Why should it be justified that writers, singers, computer programers, etc., do some work once, and then magically reproduce it over and over and over, without really working, and they get paid as if they did that work all over again.For example.
I have a friend who just wrote a program.
He gets paid $20 a copy, per year.
He has sold $5,000 copies, so he makes $100,000 a year, without really doing anything.
The initial time he spent on the program was a year.
If he were anyone else, he would get $100,000 for his initial work, and then if he wanted to make another $100,000 dollars, he would have to keep working just as hard, for another year.It only makes complete sense to require singers to actually perform, in concert, or in the studio, if they want to get paid.
Writers should get paid for their time actually writing, and computer programmers should only get paid for their time actually programming.
Inventors should get paid for a product produced, and not be allowed to own patents for ideas.Copyrights and patents are unfair, and cater to a small portion of society.
Copyrights and patents treat certain industries as if their time is somehow more valuable than the average person.Please note, I am an inventor and a computer programmer.
Also, most patents and copyrights belong to big companies, and not the individual that came up with the idea or material, so in that sense, the idea of patents and copyrights has failed anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730803</id>
	<title>It just goes that way.</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1255442880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This really isn't something that only exists in communications. If there were a huge market for hygienic corn cobs, you'd have heard that toilet paper caused rectal tumors or that improper squatting stunted the growth of children. This is just the way of business. When someone gets close to your bread and butter you squeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This really is n't something that only exists in communications .
If there were a huge market for hygienic corn cobs , you 'd have heard that toilet paper caused rectal tumors or that improper squatting stunted the growth of children .
This is just the way of business .
When someone gets close to your bread and butter you squeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really isn't something that only exists in communications.
If there were a huge market for hygienic corn cobs, you'd have heard that toilet paper caused rectal tumors or that improper squatting stunted the growth of children.
This is just the way of business.
When someone gets close to your bread and butter you squeal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731447</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>Smegly</author>
	<datestamp>1255446900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.</p></div><p>Its not so simple... this is defiantly not just the *AAs that are behind the push to enforce Orwellian DRM, IP etc.. your also fighting the US Gov and associated traditional political power bases. See:<a href="http://www.piratgruppen.org/spip.php?article53" title="piratgruppen.org" rel="nofollow">The Political Economy of Intellectual Property</a> [piratgruppen.org] For a little more on that, but the attitude was summed up by Alan Greenspan in his speech to congress back in 2004:<br> <br>
<a href="http://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/march3/greenspan-33.html" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">"Unlike physical property, which can be defended by armed enforcement, <b>intellectual property can be stolen</b> by an act 'as simple as broadcasting an idea without the permission of the originator.'"  Alan Greenspan</a> [stanford.edu] </p><p>You don't have to dig far to see that the US Gov considers IP to almost be a matter of National Security ("Safeguarding the Nation&rsquo;s economic
infrastructure")<a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/corpplan/pt03.pdf" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow"> <i>PTO is cognizant of its responsibility for providing effective management and stewardship of the Nation&rsquo;s intellectual property resources
by administering the laws related to patents and trademarks, and providing customers with the highest level of quality and services. In
doing this, PTO emphasizes timeliness in processing applications and the quality of issued patents and registered trademarks. These high
levels of quality and service can be provided only through enhancing our human resources, leveraging information technology, employing
better processes and effectively managing resources</i> </a> [uspto.gov] </p><p>Going to have to boycott the two major political parties while your at it, it would seem... but there is no Pirate Party here and unlikely to ever be one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA , these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways , purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony , why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.Its not so simple... this is defiantly not just the * AAs that are behind the push to enforce Orwellian DRM , IP etc.. your also fighting the US Gov and associated traditional political power bases .
See : The Political Economy of Intellectual Property [ piratgruppen.org ] For a little more on that , but the attitude was summed up by Alan Greenspan in his speech to congress back in 2004 : " Unlike physical property , which can be defended by armed enforcement , intellectual property can be stolen by an act 'as simple as broadcasting an idea without the permission of the originator .
' " Alan Greenspan [ stanford.edu ] You do n't have to dig far to see that the US Gov considers IP to almost be a matter of National Security ( " Safeguarding the Nation    s economic infrastructure " ) PTO is cognizant of its responsibility for providing effective management and stewardship of the Nation    s intellectual property resources by administering the laws related to patents and trademarks , and providing customers with the highest level of quality and services .
In doing this , PTO emphasizes timeliness in processing applications and the quality of issued patents and registered trademarks .
These high levels of quality and service can be provided only through enhancing our human resources , leveraging information technology , employing better processes and effectively managing resources [ uspto.gov ] Going to have to boycott the two major political parties while your at it , it would seem... but there is no Pirate Party here and unlikely to ever be one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.Its not so simple... this is defiantly not just the *AAs that are behind the push to enforce Orwellian DRM, IP etc.. your also fighting the US Gov and associated traditional political power bases.
See:The Political Economy of Intellectual Property [piratgruppen.org] For a little more on that, but the attitude was summed up by Alan Greenspan in his speech to congress back in 2004: 
"Unlike physical property, which can be defended by armed enforcement, intellectual property can be stolen by an act 'as simple as broadcasting an idea without the permission of the originator.
'"  Alan Greenspan [stanford.edu] You don't have to dig far to see that the US Gov considers IP to almost be a matter of National Security ("Safeguarding the Nation’s economic
infrastructure") PTO is cognizant of its responsibility for providing effective management and stewardship of the Nation’s intellectual property resources
by administering the laws related to patents and trademarks, and providing customers with the highest level of quality and services.
In
doing this, PTO emphasizes timeliness in processing applications and the quality of issued patents and registered trademarks.
These high
levels of quality and service can be provided only through enhancing our human resources, leveraging information technology, employing
better processes and effectively managing resources  [uspto.gov] Going to have to boycott the two major political parties while your at it, it would seem... but there is no Pirate Party here and unlikely to ever be one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731169</id>
	<title>Art Industry</title>
	<author>Ivan Stepaniuk</author>
	<datestamp>1255445220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the invention of the printing press centuries ago, it was technology that made possible to make an industry from art. Now it is the same kind of technology that is taking away what it gave.

We will have to live with the hysteria until someone comes up with something smarter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the invention of the printing press centuries ago , it was technology that made possible to make an industry from art .
Now it is the same kind of technology that is taking away what it gave .
We will have to live with the hysteria until someone comes up with something smarter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the invention of the printing press centuries ago, it was technology that made possible to make an industry from art.
Now it is the same kind of technology that is taking away what it gave.
We will have to live with the hysteria until someone comes up with something smarter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733405</id>
	<title>Re:What the geek choses to forget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255455840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you a troll? If so, congratulations, your shtick is extraordinarily consistent and well-developed. A little tiring to read, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you a troll ?
If so , congratulations , your shtick is extraordinarily consistent and well-developed .
A little tiring to read , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you a troll?
If so, congratulations, your shtick is extraordinarily consistent and well-developed.
A little tiring to read, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731863</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>Java Pimp</author>
	<datestamp>1255448820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.</p></div><p>No... We wouldn't...</p><p>Quill pens would be deemed illegal as a circumvention device under the DMCA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was up to the * * AAs , we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.No... We would n't...Quill pens would be deemed illegal as a circumvention device under the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.No... We wouldn't...Quill pens would be deemed illegal as a circumvention device under the DMCA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730669</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>DavidMR</author>
	<datestamp>1255441800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems doubtful that people are going to forget about copyrights anytime soon.  In fact, just the opposite--I see evidence of growing paranoia.  Teachers are drilling into their students, that they must get permission to use copyrighted material in writing.  I've had students write to me asking for permission for reuse of my music.  They refuse to allow me to give permission to them via e-mail--they need the permission by snail mail.  YIkes!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems doubtful that people are going to forget about copyrights anytime soon .
In fact , just the opposite--I see evidence of growing paranoia .
Teachers are drilling into their students , that they must get permission to use copyrighted material in writing .
I 've had students write to me asking for permission for reuse of my music .
They refuse to allow me to give permission to them via e-mail--they need the permission by snail mail .
YIkes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems doubtful that people are going to forget about copyrights anytime soon.
In fact, just the opposite--I see evidence of growing paranoia.
Teachers are drilling into their students, that they must get permission to use copyrighted material in writing.
I've had students write to me asking for permission for reuse of my music.
They refuse to allow me to give permission to them via e-mail--they need the permission by snail mail.
YIkes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730631</id>
	<title>Sousa had a point</title>
	<author>dorque\_wrench</author>
	<datestamp>1255441440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Singing will no longer be a fine accomplishment; vocal exercises so important a factor in the curriculum of physical culture will be out of vogue. Then what of the national throat? Will it not weaken?"
<br> <br>
Have you <i>heard</i> the "quality" of "singers" we've (over-)produced in the last 10 years??? Pick an episode, any episode, of <i>Saturday Night Live</i> from the last 10 years. NO ONE sounds live the way they sound on recording. I know what you're thinking: Beyonce. Fine. You're right. Pick another one. Can you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Singing will no longer be a fine accomplishment ; vocal exercises so important a factor in the curriculum of physical culture will be out of vogue .
Then what of the national throat ?
Will it not weaken ?
" Have you heard the " quality " of " singers " we 've ( over- ) produced in the last 10 years ? ? ?
Pick an episode , any episode , of Saturday Night Live from the last 10 years .
NO ONE sounds live the way they sound on recording .
I know what you 're thinking : Beyonce .
Fine. You 're right .
Pick another one .
Can you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Singing will no longer be a fine accomplishment; vocal exercises so important a factor in the curriculum of physical culture will be out of vogue.
Then what of the national throat?
Will it not weaken?
"
 
Have you heard the "quality" of "singers" we've (over-)produced in the last 10 years???
Pick an episode, any episode, of Saturday Night Live from the last 10 years.
NO ONE sounds live the way they sound on recording.
I know what you're thinking: Beyonce.
Fine. You're right.
Pick another one.
Can you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731095</id>
	<title>Quality keeps declining</title>
	<author>hessian</author>
	<datestamp>1255444740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we have anything as good as Beethoven symphonies yet?</p><p>What about even approximating Wagner, or Bruckner?</p><p>As we become able to produce more and more quantity, it seems quality declines.</p><p>Something to ponder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we have anything as good as Beethoven symphonies yet ? What about even approximating Wagner , or Bruckner ? As we become able to produce more and more quantity , it seems quality declines.Something to ponder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we have anything as good as Beethoven symphonies yet?What about even approximating Wagner, or Bruckner?As we become able to produce more and more quantity, it seems quality declines.Something to ponder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29745883</id>
	<title>Re:Systematic copyright indoctrination</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1255539720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, you should 've just nicked it from BitTorrent.</p><p>Have I taught you nuffin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , you should 've just nicked it from BitTorrent.Have I taught you nuffin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, you should 've just nicked it from BitTorrent.Have I taught you nuffin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731975</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>BakaHoushi</author>
	<datestamp>1255449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heck, that all sounds fair to me. The RIAA provides no service or commodity, then proceeds to collect payment for another's work. It's a win-win!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , that all sounds fair to me .
The RIAA provides no service or commodity , then proceeds to collect payment for another 's work .
It 's a win-win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, that all sounds fair to me.
The RIAA provides no service or commodity, then proceeds to collect payment for another's work.
It's a win-win!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741775</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa was right.</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1255551360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on where you live.<br> <br>

It's <i>real</i> easy to find some good live jazz in northern Wisconsin.<br> <br>

Oh wait, it's only classic rock and country cover bands.  I'd have to travel to Milwaukee or Madison probably.<br> <br>

Jackass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on where you live .
It 's real easy to find some good live jazz in northern Wisconsin .
Oh wait , it 's only classic rock and country cover bands .
I 'd have to travel to Milwaukee or Madison probably .
Jackass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on where you live.
It's real easy to find some good live jazz in northern Wisconsin.
Oh wait, it's only classic rock and country cover bands.
I'd have to travel to Milwaukee or Madison probably.
Jackass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732499</id>
	<title>Re:What's being ignored</title>
	<author>Njoyda Sauce</author>
	<datestamp>1255451640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You had me reading what I thought was a decent post until this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you take an iPod you want everyone accepts that as stealing but if you download a movie or song you want hey it's just 1s and 0s. No harm no foul. It's this perception that has changed. Unfortunately content takes money to produce just like iPods so it will affect what's out there.</p> </div><p>I'm not going restate the argument that has been stated much better by others before me that copyright infringement  stealing.  It's just a fact.  They are both currently illegal, but the legality of copyright infringement is certainly more difficult to assess from a layman's perspective. The issue you're trying to get at is lost sales, but that is a wacky area of economics to prove. Certainly even you (who seems to be very pro-copyright) can't believe what the **AA throws around as actual numbers.</p><p>Without studying the forces involved, the reality for the average citizen is:<br>1) Copyright is complicated and oppressive<br>2) Stealing is clearly wrong, but associating copyright infringement with car theft or mugging is ridiculous and serves to do nothing but insult the common man.<br>3) Works are made to be economically viable to support the creator while they are alive not to establish a family inherited revenue stream for future generations.<br>4) There are few if any good points to be made for the use of copyright in prosecution, DCMA, and extension of rights (Copyright will be extended to be as long as it needs to be to keep Mickey a cash cow)<br>5) Less and less is being made available to the citizenry as public domain while we pay an increasing cost for things we can't actually own - DRMed music and video.</p><p>Can some pro-copyright poster comment of the above and educate us on why those aren't valid observations?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You had me reading what I thought was a decent post until this : If you take an iPod you want everyone accepts that as stealing but if you download a movie or song you want hey it 's just 1s and 0s .
No harm no foul .
It 's this perception that has changed .
Unfortunately content takes money to produce just like iPods so it will affect what 's out there .
I 'm not going restate the argument that has been stated much better by others before me that copyright infringement stealing .
It 's just a fact .
They are both currently illegal , but the legality of copyright infringement is certainly more difficult to assess from a layman 's perspective .
The issue you 're trying to get at is lost sales , but that is a wacky area of economics to prove .
Certainly even you ( who seems to be very pro-copyright ) ca n't believe what the * * AA throws around as actual numbers.Without studying the forces involved , the reality for the average citizen is : 1 ) Copyright is complicated and oppressive2 ) Stealing is clearly wrong , but associating copyright infringement with car theft or mugging is ridiculous and serves to do nothing but insult the common man.3 ) Works are made to be economically viable to support the creator while they are alive not to establish a family inherited revenue stream for future generations.4 ) There are few if any good points to be made for the use of copyright in prosecution , DCMA , and extension of rights ( Copyright will be extended to be as long as it needs to be to keep Mickey a cash cow ) 5 ) Less and less is being made available to the citizenry as public domain while we pay an increasing cost for things we ca n't actually own - DRMed music and video.Can some pro-copyright poster comment of the above and educate us on why those are n't valid observations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had me reading what I thought was a decent post until this:If you take an iPod you want everyone accepts that as stealing but if you download a movie or song you want hey it's just 1s and 0s.
No harm no foul.
It's this perception that has changed.
Unfortunately content takes money to produce just like iPods so it will affect what's out there.
I'm not going restate the argument that has been stated much better by others before me that copyright infringement  stealing.
It's just a fact.
They are both currently illegal, but the legality of copyright infringement is certainly more difficult to assess from a layman's perspective.
The issue you're trying to get at is lost sales, but that is a wacky area of economics to prove.
Certainly even you (who seems to be very pro-copyright) can't believe what the **AA throws around as actual numbers.Without studying the forces involved, the reality for the average citizen is:1) Copyright is complicated and oppressive2) Stealing is clearly wrong, but associating copyright infringement with car theft or mugging is ridiculous and serves to do nothing but insult the common man.3) Works are made to be economically viable to support the creator while they are alive not to establish a family inherited revenue stream for future generations.4) There are few if any good points to be made for the use of copyright in prosecution, DCMA, and extension of rights (Copyright will be extended to be as long as it needs to be to keep Mickey a cash cow)5) Less and less is being made available to the citizenry as public domain while we pay an increasing cost for things we can't actually own - DRMed music and video.Can some pro-copyright poster comment of the above and educate us on why those aren't valid observations?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732935</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1255453620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When the original laborer who created the work dies, then the copyright should die as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem with this is if the copyright is owned by a group of people (like a company). Then you will have an issue if you need to keep track of all the people involved.</p><p>14 years sounds right to me. Even if the person dies, his kids would have the rights for the remaining part. Not an ideal solution, but easy to understand.<br>e.g. This text is (c) Copyright October 2009.<br>That means it would be public domain November 2009+14,whether I die or live.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the original laborer who created the work dies , then the copyright should die as well.The problem with this is if the copyright is owned by a group of people ( like a company ) .
Then you will have an issue if you need to keep track of all the people involved.14 years sounds right to me .
Even if the person dies , his kids would have the rights for the remaining part .
Not an ideal solution , but easy to understand.e.g .
This text is ( c ) Copyright October 2009.That means it would be public domain November 2009 + 14,whether I die or live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the original laborer who created the work dies, then the copyright should die as well.The problem with this is if the copyright is owned by a group of people (like a company).
Then you will have an issue if you need to keep track of all the people involved.14 years sounds right to me.
Even if the person dies, his kids would have the rights for the remaining part.
Not an ideal solution, but easy to understand.e.g.
This text is (c) Copyright October 2009.That means it would be public domain November 2009+14,whether I die or live.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29743425</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright is not about innovation</title>
	<author>crimperman</author>
	<datestamp>1255529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works. Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.</p></div></blockquote><p>He did not define what he meant by "copyright industry" so you had to guess. If you do that you can't then argue against it because it's <em>your</em> definition not his. Welcome to strawman country.</p><p>What you describe is probably more like a copyrighting industry not the copyright industry. I had assumed he was referring to the industry of copyrighting works (and also of enforcing those copyrights). By that definition he is correct. Innovation has come from the creative side not the part involved in copyrighting. In fact creativity has been regularly shown to be stiffled by forceful copyrighting. Note that copyright in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing: for example the copyright on a GPL product enables the author to dictate that it cannot be redistributed under a proprietary licence. It is the use of copyright law that seems to be at issue here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By definition , a " copyright industry " would be an industry that produces copyrighted works .
Such industries would not necessarily be creating " innovation in either the creation or distribution of works " and to suggest so is disingenuous.He did not define what he meant by " copyright industry " so you had to guess .
If you do that you ca n't then argue against it because it 's your definition not his .
Welcome to strawman country.What you describe is probably more like a copyrighting industry not the copyright industry .
I had assumed he was referring to the industry of copyrighting works ( and also of enforcing those copyrights ) .
By that definition he is correct .
Innovation has come from the creative side not the part involved in copyrighting .
In fact creativity has been regularly shown to be stiffled by forceful copyrighting .
Note that copyright in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing : for example the copyright on a GPL product enables the author to dictate that it can not be redistributed under a proprietary licence .
It is the use of copyright law that seems to be at issue here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works.
Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.He did not define what he meant by "copyright industry" so you had to guess.
If you do that you can't then argue against it because it's your definition not his.
Welcome to strawman country.What you describe is probably more like a copyrighting industry not the copyright industry.
I had assumed he was referring to the industry of copyrighting works (and also of enforcing those copyrights).
By that definition he is correct.
Innovation has come from the creative side not the part involved in copyrighting.
In fact creativity has been regularly shown to be stiffled by forceful copyrighting.
Note that copyright in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing: for example the copyright on a GPL product enables the author to dictate that it cannot be redistributed under a proprietary licence.
It is the use of copyright law that seems to be at issue here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732275</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1255450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, where have I seen that quote before?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , where have I seen that quote before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, where have I seen that quote before?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731173</id>
	<title>Re:No he wasn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255445280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>His comment was not about the number of musicians.  It was about the culture surrounding music.  When I was an undergrad, there were only a handful of parties with live entertainment; even when friends of mine who were musicians went to parties, they almost never played an instrument or sang anything.  There was still music at the parties -- but it was recorded, and identical versions of the same songs could be heard over and over again at party after party.<br> <br>

In particular, small gatherings among friends tended to lack live music.  A party with 20~ people typical involved some digital music player hooked up to a set of speakers, and not a single person actually singing or playing an instrument.  Whether you think this is a good thing or not is not relevant to whether or not the comment in 1906 was accurate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>His comment was not about the number of musicians .
It was about the culture surrounding music .
When I was an undergrad , there were only a handful of parties with live entertainment ; even when friends of mine who were musicians went to parties , they almost never played an instrument or sang anything .
There was still music at the parties -- but it was recorded , and identical versions of the same songs could be heard over and over again at party after party .
In particular , small gatherings among friends tended to lack live music .
A party with 20 ~ people typical involved some digital music player hooked up to a set of speakers , and not a single person actually singing or playing an instrument .
Whether you think this is a good thing or not is not relevant to whether or not the comment in 1906 was accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His comment was not about the number of musicians.
It was about the culture surrounding music.
When I was an undergrad, there were only a handful of parties with live entertainment; even when friends of mine who were musicians went to parties, they almost never played an instrument or sang anything.
There was still music at the parties -- but it was recorded, and identical versions of the same songs could be heard over and over again at party after party.
In particular, small gatherings among friends tended to lack live music.
A party with 20~ people typical involved some digital music player hooked up to a set of speakers, and not a single person actually singing or playing an instrument.
Whether you think this is a good thing or not is not relevant to whether or not the comment in 1906 was accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</id>
	<title>The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1255439760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA (and later the MPAA,) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients' business turf, right up until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that they're actually preventing their client's from making more money than if they kept their head in the sand.</p><p>If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.</p><p>They are a creation dating from before the invention of democracy and all they have ever done is behave like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA ( and later the MPAA , ) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients ' business turf , right up until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that they 're actually preventing their client 's from making more money than if they kept their head in the sand.If it was up to the * * AAs , we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.They are a creation dating from before the invention of democracy and all they have ever done is behave like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA (and later the MPAA,) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients' business turf, right up until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that they're actually preventing their client's from making more money than if they kept their head in the sand.If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.They are a creation dating from before the invention of democracy and all they have ever done is behave like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730523</id>
	<title>I can think of one!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255440480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."</p><p>DRM!</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I can not think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries .
" DRM ! Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.
"DRM!Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732101</id>
	<title>My favorite Valenti quote</title>
	<author>wk633</author>
	<datestamp>1255449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A public domain work is an orphan.  No one is responsible for its life.  But everyone exploits its use, until that time cretain when it becomes soiled and haggard, barren of its previous virtues.  Who, then, will invest the funds to renovate and nourish its future life, when on one owns it?  How does the consumer benefit from that scenario?  The answer is, there is no benefit."</p><p>-- Jack Valenti</p><p>As found in 'Digital Copyright' by Jessica Litman</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A public domain work is an orphan .
No one is responsible for its life .
But everyone exploits its use , until that time cretain when it becomes soiled and haggard , barren of its previous virtues .
Who , then , will invest the funds to renovate and nourish its future life , when on one owns it ?
How does the consumer benefit from that scenario ?
The answer is , there is no benefit .
" -- Jack ValentiAs found in 'Digital Copyright ' by Jessica Litman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A public domain work is an orphan.
No one is responsible for its life.
But everyone exploits its use, until that time cretain when it becomes soiled and haggard, barren of its previous virtues.
Who, then, will invest the funds to renovate and nourish its future life, when on one owns it?
How does the consumer benefit from that scenario?
The answer is, there is no benefit.
"-- Jack ValentiAs found in 'Digital Copyright' by Jessica Litman</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730793</id>
	<title>ho8o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255442760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">If you have Software lawyers to decline for Non nigger patrons How is the GNAA Said. 'Screaming It a break, if itself backwards, numbers continue it will be among and was taken over [gay-sex-access.com]? startling turn consider worthwhile Parties, but here it just 0wnz.', create, manufacture many users of BSD JULIET ARE TOGETHER don't want to feel of businees and it racist for a [gay-sex-access.com]? Are a pathetic About outside DECLINED IN MARKET contaminated while is busy infighting legitimise doing sux0r status, *BSD driven out by the of OpenBSD. How Company a 2 to fight what has if you don't themselves to be a flaws in the BSD</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have Software lawyers to decline for Non nigger patrons How is the GNAA Said .
'Screaming It a break , if itself backwards , numbers continue it will be among and was taken over [ gay-sex-access.com ] ?
startling turn consider worthwhile Parties , but here it just 0wnz .
' , create , manufacture many users of BSD JULIET ARE TOGETHER do n't want to feel of businees and it racist for a [ gay-sex-access.com ] ?
Are a pathetic About outside DECLINED IN MARKET contaminated while is busy infighting legitimise doing sux0r status , * BSD driven out by the of OpenBSD .
How Company a 2 to fight what has if you do n't themselves to be a flaws in the BSD [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have Software lawyers to decline for Non nigger patrons How is the GNAA Said.
'Screaming It a break, if itself backwards, numbers continue it will be among and was taken over [gay-sex-access.com]?
startling turn consider worthwhile Parties, but here it just 0wnz.
', create, manufacture many users of BSD JULIET ARE TOGETHER don't want to feel of businees and it racist for a [gay-sex-access.com]?
Are a pathetic About outside DECLINED IN MARKET contaminated while is busy infighting legitimise doing sux0r status, *BSD driven out by the of OpenBSD.
How Company a 2 to fight what has if you don't themselves to be a flaws in the BSD [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730933</id>
	<title>digital copy EQUALS exact copy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before, with recordings, one copy was all that was "original".  ANY copy would degrade the quality.  Copy a copy and the quality was already POOR.  That goes for photocopy, LPs, tape, whatever.  The problem today is that's not the case.  A copy is no longer a copy, it is a perfect recreation of the source.  No generational loss means the 1000th copy (copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...) is a perfect a reproduction as the first.  And that is the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before , with recordings , one copy was all that was " original " .
ANY copy would degrade the quality .
Copy a copy and the quality was already POOR .
That goes for photocopy , LPs , tape , whatever .
The problem today is that 's not the case .
A copy is no longer a copy , it is a perfect recreation of the source .
No generational loss means the 1000th copy ( copy of a copy of a copy of a copy... ) is a perfect a reproduction as the first .
And that is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before, with recordings, one copy was all that was "original".
ANY copy would degrade the quality.
Copy a copy and the quality was already POOR.
That goes for photocopy, LPs, tape, whatever.
The problem today is that's not the case.
A copy is no longer a copy, it is a perfect recreation of the source.
No generational loss means the 1000th copy (copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...) is a perfect a reproduction as the first.
And that is the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29737243</id>
	<title>people will continue to earn money from music</title>
	<author>Sam Garedner</author>
	<datestamp>1255428720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even after the copyright will be gone, music will survive. Kids nowadays spend ever more money on music: going to performances, buying gadgets textbooks, photo's, but not on discs or downloads.

With hindsight, the music on discs era will have been only 50 years in the timeless history of music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even after the copyright will be gone , music will survive .
Kids nowadays spend ever more money on music : going to performances , buying gadgets textbooks , photo 's , but not on discs or downloads .
With hindsight , the music on discs era will have been only 50 years in the timeless history of music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even after the copyright will be gone, music will survive.
Kids nowadays spend ever more money on music: going to performances, buying gadgets textbooks, photo's, but not on discs or downloads.
With hindsight, the music on discs era will have been only 50 years in the timeless history of music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732919</id>
	<title>Jamie Kellner, the CEO of Turner Broadcasting</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1255453560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People skipping commercials are stealing television.<br>People who wear body armor are stealing my ammunition.<br>People fluoridating water are sapping and impurifying all of our precious bodily fluids!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People skipping commercials are stealing television.People who wear body armor are stealing my ammunition.People fluoridating water are sapping and impurifying all of our precious bodily fluids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People skipping commercials are stealing television.People who wear body armor are stealing my ammunition.People fluoridating water are sapping and impurifying all of our precious bodily fluids!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731627</id>
	<title>What the geek choses to forget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255447800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Here's what Thomas Jefferson said</i> </p><p>Jefferson was part of the slave-holding elite.</p><p>The "light" wasn't for the blacks who built the University of Virginia or who were brought to the school as servants for its - all-male - students.</p><p>Jefferson lived as aristocrats have always lived - pretty much as if he had unlimited funds - and unlimited hands to draw upon - and like many of his class he spent most of his life on the edge of bankruptcy.</p><p>This tends to have disastrous consequences for those dependent on The Master's patronage.</p><p>Jefferson's slaves might reasonably have asked why they weren't being compensated for their own contributions - or whether they might be in better hands with a northerner who knew how to turn an idea into an invention that just might bring in some much-needed cash.</p><p>It interests me how easily the populist-anarchic-socialist-libertarian geek takes on the coloration of an aristocratic elite-<br>when the really interesting things in American art and invention have always had solid lower and middle class roots - a world thoroughly tainted with thoughts of  property and profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what Thomas Jefferson said Jefferson was part of the slave-holding elite.The " light " was n't for the blacks who built the University of Virginia or who were brought to the school as servants for its - all-male - students.Jefferson lived as aristocrats have always lived - pretty much as if he had unlimited funds - and unlimited hands to draw upon - and like many of his class he spent most of his life on the edge of bankruptcy.This tends to have disastrous consequences for those dependent on The Master 's patronage.Jefferson 's slaves might reasonably have asked why they were n't being compensated for their own contributions - or whether they might be in better hands with a northerner who knew how to turn an idea into an invention that just might bring in some much-needed cash.It interests me how easily the populist-anarchic-socialist-libertarian geek takes on the coloration of an aristocratic elite-when the really interesting things in American art and invention have always had solid lower and middle class roots - a world thoroughly tainted with thoughts of property and profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what Thomas Jefferson said Jefferson was part of the slave-holding elite.The "light" wasn't for the blacks who built the University of Virginia or who were brought to the school as servants for its - all-male - students.Jefferson lived as aristocrats have always lived - pretty much as if he had unlimited funds - and unlimited hands to draw upon - and like many of his class he spent most of his life on the edge of bankruptcy.This tends to have disastrous consequences for those dependent on The Master's patronage.Jefferson's slaves might reasonably have asked why they weren't being compensated for their own contributions - or whether they might be in better hands with a northerner who knew how to turn an idea into an invention that just might bring in some much-needed cash.It interests me how easily the populist-anarchic-socialist-libertarian geek takes on the coloration of an aristocratic elite-when the really interesting things in American art and invention have always had solid lower and middle class roots - a world thoroughly tainted with thoughts of  property and profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732241</id>
	<title>It is about distribution though</title>
	<author>grimJester</author>
	<datestamp>1255450380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"innovation in either the creation or distribution of works"</i> <br> <br>Note that the so-called copyright industry is actually not mainly about making copies. They finance the creation of works and distribute them. I would argue that no important innovations in creation has come from them and they have actively worked against any and all innovations in distribution.<br> <br>I think copyright is a misnomer in the modern world and maybe it always was. It should be called distribution rights. Making copies without selling or otherwise transfering them to others was just not thought of when copyright was invented. Making of a copy was seen as intent to distribute.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" innovation in either the creation or distribution of works " Note that the so-called copyright industry is actually not mainly about making copies .
They finance the creation of works and distribute them .
I would argue that no important innovations in creation has come from them and they have actively worked against any and all innovations in distribution .
I think copyright is a misnomer in the modern world and maybe it always was .
It should be called distribution rights .
Making copies without selling or otherwise transfering them to others was just not thought of when copyright was invented .
Making of a copy was seen as intent to distribute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"innovation in either the creation or distribution of works"  Note that the so-called copyright industry is actually not mainly about making copies.
They finance the creation of works and distribute them.
I would argue that no important innovations in creation has come from them and they have actively worked against any and all innovations in distribution.
I think copyright is a misnomer in the modern world and maybe it always was.
It should be called distribution rights.
Making copies without selling or otherwise transfering them to others was just not thought of when copyright was invented.
Making of a copy was seen as intent to distribute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741203</id>
	<title>Re:Money for nothing and your chicks for free</title>
	<author>mrdtr</author>
	<datestamp>1255456260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank You. You pretty much expressed and explained how I feel about this whole copyright situation. The only difference is I truly believe those "copyright industrialists" do know exactly why they are bad, and greedy people know that they are greedy - but their own self interest is more important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank You .
You pretty much expressed and explained how I feel about this whole copyright situation .
The only difference is I truly believe those " copyright industrialists " do know exactly why they are bad , and greedy people know that they are greedy - but their own self interest is more important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank You.
You pretty much expressed and explained how I feel about this whole copyright situation.
The only difference is I truly believe those "copyright industrialists" do know exactly why they are bad, and greedy people know that they are greedy - but their own self interest is more important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730727</id>
	<title>Money for nothing and your chicks for free</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1255442340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this comment (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1402013&amp;cid=29730503) was an angry troll, but he voices the fear of the copyright industry perfectly just the same.</p><p>Copyright is a secondary aspect of art.  It is the performance and the original art that people want to see.  I can get a copy of a Van Gough at WalMart for $9.99, but the original is priceless.  I can download Jethro Tull's entire music collection off the internet for free and I would still pay more than $100 a ticket to go to a concert lasting between 1 and 2 hours.  Some movies I will want to see at the theater, others on DVD, others on TV and still others not at all.</p><p>The point I'm trying to get at is this -- people who will pay, will pay and it doesn't matter how much or how little protection there is.  Should there be some?  Yeah -- because there are people out there who will try to make a business out of copying things for sale and that's not fair either. (I speak of REAL pirates... the bootleggers who sell copies as though they were real)  But these copyright industrialists have taken things too far.  Their industry is based on the creative works of others and have indeed resulted in the suppression and ruination of creative works.</p><p>And people will ALWAYS want to create music and perform the arts whether there is much if any money in it at all.  It is a natural drive in we humans.  These practices weren't initially driven as a for-profit activity.  They did it as a form of self expression and as a means of entertaining those around them.  It is the greedy copyright industrialists who are trying to bottle up the hearts and souls of the creative and expressive to make money.  What's worse is that the greed is a disease that people quite often catch for themselves turning creatives into greedy creatives.</p><p>I liken the difference to people who become doctors and nurses.  Some do it because they feel they have a need to help people.  Some do it because a lot of people in the medical industry live in really big houses and own a lot of things.  Unfortunately, it's a lot more difficult to tell the difference between the real doctors and nurses and the ones who are just in it for the money, but I dare you to make an argument for going to a doctor who is in it for the money instead of the one who is in it for the good of humanity.</p><p>The only business that is ever threatened by improved technologies are those that need to be left behind.  This article puts it out nicely and shows how long this game has been going on.  DAT was an excellent technology and really would have been nice but the copyright industrialists pretty much ruined it.  HDMI is a nice interface for media playback devices, but it too is a bit buggered in the name of the "money for nothing" industrialists.  The average joe on the streets may never fully appreciate the damage and harm caused by the copyright industrialists, but stories like these are important when trying to show it to them and showing how incredibly bad the copyright industrialists are.</p><p>The copyright industrialists don't even KNOW they are bad.  The greedy don't even know they are greedy.  They simply want what they want and will do a great deal to get it.  The difference is that they are willing to harm others to get what they want while the average joe is willing to work for his pay.  I think when you boil it down to the question of whether or not someone is willing to harm others for profit, that is probably the best way to determine if someone is "bad" or not.  (There are tow truck drivers who will respond in an emergency to assist.  There are tow truck drivers who are set up to tow the vehicles and hold vehicles for usurious ransom.  The difference is pretty clear.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this comment ( http : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1402013&amp;cid = 29730503 ) was an angry troll , but he voices the fear of the copyright industry perfectly just the same.Copyright is a secondary aspect of art .
It is the performance and the original art that people want to see .
I can get a copy of a Van Gough at WalMart for $ 9.99 , but the original is priceless .
I can download Jethro Tull 's entire music collection off the internet for free and I would still pay more than $ 100 a ticket to go to a concert lasting between 1 and 2 hours .
Some movies I will want to see at the theater , others on DVD , others on TV and still others not at all.The point I 'm trying to get at is this -- people who will pay , will pay and it does n't matter how much or how little protection there is .
Should there be some ?
Yeah -- because there are people out there who will try to make a business out of copying things for sale and that 's not fair either .
( I speak of REAL pirates... the bootleggers who sell copies as though they were real ) But these copyright industrialists have taken things too far .
Their industry is based on the creative works of others and have indeed resulted in the suppression and ruination of creative works.And people will ALWAYS want to create music and perform the arts whether there is much if any money in it at all .
It is a natural drive in we humans .
These practices were n't initially driven as a for-profit activity .
They did it as a form of self expression and as a means of entertaining those around them .
It is the greedy copyright industrialists who are trying to bottle up the hearts and souls of the creative and expressive to make money .
What 's worse is that the greed is a disease that people quite often catch for themselves turning creatives into greedy creatives.I liken the difference to people who become doctors and nurses .
Some do it because they feel they have a need to help people .
Some do it because a lot of people in the medical industry live in really big houses and own a lot of things .
Unfortunately , it 's a lot more difficult to tell the difference between the real doctors and nurses and the ones who are just in it for the money , but I dare you to make an argument for going to a doctor who is in it for the money instead of the one who is in it for the good of humanity.The only business that is ever threatened by improved technologies are those that need to be left behind .
This article puts it out nicely and shows how long this game has been going on .
DAT was an excellent technology and really would have been nice but the copyright industrialists pretty much ruined it .
HDMI is a nice interface for media playback devices , but it too is a bit buggered in the name of the " money for nothing " industrialists .
The average joe on the streets may never fully appreciate the damage and harm caused by the copyright industrialists , but stories like these are important when trying to show it to them and showing how incredibly bad the copyright industrialists are.The copyright industrialists do n't even KNOW they are bad .
The greedy do n't even know they are greedy .
They simply want what they want and will do a great deal to get it .
The difference is that they are willing to harm others to get what they want while the average joe is willing to work for his pay .
I think when you boil it down to the question of whether or not someone is willing to harm others for profit , that is probably the best way to determine if someone is " bad " or not .
( There are tow truck drivers who will respond in an emergency to assist .
There are tow truck drivers who are set up to tow the vehicles and hold vehicles for usurious ransom .
The difference is pretty clear .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this comment (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1402013&amp;cid=29730503) was an angry troll, but he voices the fear of the copyright industry perfectly just the same.Copyright is a secondary aspect of art.
It is the performance and the original art that people want to see.
I can get a copy of a Van Gough at WalMart for $9.99, but the original is priceless.
I can download Jethro Tull's entire music collection off the internet for free and I would still pay more than $100 a ticket to go to a concert lasting between 1 and 2 hours.
Some movies I will want to see at the theater, others on DVD, others on TV and still others not at all.The point I'm trying to get at is this -- people who will pay, will pay and it doesn't matter how much or how little protection there is.
Should there be some?
Yeah -- because there are people out there who will try to make a business out of copying things for sale and that's not fair either.
(I speak of REAL pirates... the bootleggers who sell copies as though they were real)  But these copyright industrialists have taken things too far.
Their industry is based on the creative works of others and have indeed resulted in the suppression and ruination of creative works.And people will ALWAYS want to create music and perform the arts whether there is much if any money in it at all.
It is a natural drive in we humans.
These practices weren't initially driven as a for-profit activity.
They did it as a form of self expression and as a means of entertaining those around them.
It is the greedy copyright industrialists who are trying to bottle up the hearts and souls of the creative and expressive to make money.
What's worse is that the greed is a disease that people quite often catch for themselves turning creatives into greedy creatives.I liken the difference to people who become doctors and nurses.
Some do it because they feel they have a need to help people.
Some do it because a lot of people in the medical industry live in really big houses and own a lot of things.
Unfortunately, it's a lot more difficult to tell the difference between the real doctors and nurses and the ones who are just in it for the money, but I dare you to make an argument for going to a doctor who is in it for the money instead of the one who is in it for the good of humanity.The only business that is ever threatened by improved technologies are those that need to be left behind.
This article puts it out nicely and shows how long this game has been going on.
DAT was an excellent technology and really would have been nice but the copyright industrialists pretty much ruined it.
HDMI is a nice interface for media playback devices, but it too is a bit buggered in the name of the "money for nothing" industrialists.
The average joe on the streets may never fully appreciate the damage and harm caused by the copyright industrialists, but stories like these are important when trying to show it to them and showing how incredibly bad the copyright industrialists are.The copyright industrialists don't even KNOW they are bad.
The greedy don't even know they are greedy.
They simply want what they want and will do a great deal to get it.
The difference is that they are willing to harm others to get what they want while the average joe is willing to work for his pay.
I think when you boil it down to the question of whether or not someone is willing to harm others for profit, that is probably the best way to determine if someone is "bad" or not.
(There are tow truck drivers who will respond in an emergency to assist.
There are tow truck drivers who are set up to tow the vehicles and hold vehicles for usurious ransom.
The difference is pretty clear.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730699</id>
	<title>Re:No he wasn't</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1255442100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might or might not be true...</p><p>However, music is no less a part of our lives since the recording industry started up.  It might be more so even if the recording industry made music a more specialized profession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might or might not be true...However , music is no less a part of our lives since the recording industry started up .
It might be more so even if the recording industry made music a more specialized profession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might or might not be true...However, music is no less a part of our lives since the recording industry started up.
It might be more so even if the recording industry made music a more specialized profession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29745831</id>
	<title>Re:Quality keeps declining</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1255539600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  Nothing to ponder here.  You're a snob who doesn't know the difference between his opinions and facts.</p><p>Grow up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Nothing to ponder here .
You 're a snob who does n't know the difference between his opinions and facts.Grow up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Nothing to ponder here.
You're a snob who doesn't know the difference between his opinions and facts.Grow up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29739093</id>
	<title>Sousa</title>
	<author>beefubermensch</author>
	<datestamp>1255437540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any tie-in with copyright aside, Sousa was correct.  Technology has negative sides, and music playback technology deeply damaged the participatory nature of music in our culture, and the associated music skills in the population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any tie-in with copyright aside , Sousa was correct .
Technology has negative sides , and music playback technology deeply damaged the participatory nature of music in our culture , and the associated music skills in the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any tie-in with copyright aside, Sousa was correct.
Technology has negative sides, and music playback technology deeply damaged the participatory nature of music in our culture, and the associated music skills in the population.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29734837</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright is not about innovation</title>
	<author>mcmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1255461900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I came in to comment on the same sentence.</p><p>Innovations in methods of creation and distribution of copyrighted works would not be covered by copyright, and as such the frequency or quality of these innovations would not be a product of the copyright industry or necessarily a measure of how well copyright is working.</p><p>Such innovations would be subject to the patent system.</p><p>To look at copyrighted works and say there have been no significant results--out of thousands upon thousands of music compositions, books, movies, radio plays, scripts, graphic novels, and so on--nothing of any significance produced?</p><p>When it comes to copyrights, the author of the original story and most of the folks posting in this thread are idiots.</p><p>I guess I'm like the guy who goes in to the "X" thread just to say "X sucks."  I really should resist these threads on copyright, patents, and trademarks.</p><p>95\% of the folks posting on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. have exactly zero clue (if not less) on these subjects and have stubbornly refused to learn anything from the 5\% who do know what they are talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I came in to comment on the same sentence.Innovations in methods of creation and distribution of copyrighted works would not be covered by copyright , and as such the frequency or quality of these innovations would not be a product of the copyright industry or necessarily a measure of how well copyright is working.Such innovations would be subject to the patent system.To look at copyrighted works and say there have been no significant results--out of thousands upon thousands of music compositions , books , movies , radio plays , scripts , graphic novels , and so on--nothing of any significance produced ? When it comes to copyrights , the author of the original story and most of the folks posting in this thread are idiots.I guess I 'm like the guy who goes in to the " X " thread just to say " X sucks .
" I really should resist these threads on copyright , patents , and trademarks.95 \ % of the folks posting on / .
have exactly zero clue ( if not less ) on these subjects and have stubbornly refused to learn anything from the 5 \ % who do know what they are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came in to comment on the same sentence.Innovations in methods of creation and distribution of copyrighted works would not be covered by copyright, and as such the frequency or quality of these innovations would not be a product of the copyright industry or necessarily a measure of how well copyright is working.Such innovations would be subject to the patent system.To look at copyrighted works and say there have been no significant results--out of thousands upon thousands of music compositions, books, movies, radio plays, scripts, graphic novels, and so on--nothing of any significance produced?When it comes to copyrights, the author of the original story and most of the folks posting in this thread are idiots.I guess I'm like the guy who goes in to the "X" thread just to say "X sucks.
"  I really should resist these threads on copyright, patents, and trademarks.95\% of the folks posting on /.
have exactly zero clue (if not less) on these subjects and have stubbornly refused to learn anything from the 5\% who do know what they are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731827</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, "To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt." I think copyright, and IP law in general has a legitimate and defensible purpose.</i></p><p>Yes, but they are badly written. Copyright law is far too long, and it's way too easy to infringe accidentally. Patents have problems as well, but trademark law seems to be sound.</p><p>As to "IP", in the US this "property" belongs to the public. The copyright holder doesn't own the copyrighted work, (s)he simply has a "limited time" monopoly on its publication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said , " To make laws that man can not , and will not obey , serves to bring all law into contempt .
" I think copyright , and IP law in general has a legitimate and defensible purpose.Yes , but they are badly written .
Copyright law is far too long , and it 's way too easy to infringe accidentally .
Patents have problems as well , but trademark law seems to be sound.As to " IP " , in the US this " property " belongs to the public .
The copyright holder does n't own the copyrighted work , ( s ) he simply has a " limited time " monopoly on its publication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, "To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
" I think copyright, and IP law in general has a legitimate and defensible purpose.Yes, but they are badly written.
Copyright law is far too long, and it's way too easy to infringe accidentally.
Patents have problems as well, but trademark law seems to be sound.As to "IP", in the US this "property" belongs to the public.
The copyright holder doesn't own the copyrighted work, (s)he simply has a "limited time" monopoly on its publication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731555</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa was right.</title>
	<author>WagonWheelsRX8</author>
	<datestamp>1255447500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sweet...offtopic but went Saturday to watch Cravin Melon...was a great time...kind of surprised to see a reference to it on Slashdot though lol...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweet...offtopic but went Saturday to watch Cravin Melon...was a great time...kind of surprised to see a reference to it on Slashdot though lol.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweet...offtopic but went Saturday to watch Cravin Melon...was a great time...kind of surprised to see a reference to it on Slashdot though lol...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29734939</id>
	<title>Re:digital copy EQUALS exact copy</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1255462440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>And that is the problem.</i> </p><p>
No, the lack of degradation is actually the opposite of a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is the problem .
No , the lack of degradation is actually the opposite of a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And that is the problem.
No, the lack of degradation is actually the opposite of a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731139</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>JediTrainer</author>
	<datestamp>1255445100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The RIAA (and later the MPAA,) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients' business turf</i> <br> <br>

Hate to break it to you, but I think this sort of thing is way more common than just being limited to these industries. Big business and/or unions have fought innovation that they see as being counter to their interests all the time. Case in point, the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian\_postal\_code#Implementation" title="wikipedia.org">Postal Codes in Canada</a> [wikipedia.org] - OMG all the mail sorters will be out of work!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA ( and later the MPAA , ) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients ' business turf Hate to break it to you , but I think this sort of thing is way more common than just being limited to these industries .
Big business and/or unions have fought innovation that they see as being counter to their interests all the time .
Case in point , the Postal Codes in Canada [ wikipedia.org ] - OMG all the mail sorters will be out of work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA (and later the MPAA,) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients' business turf  

Hate to break it to you, but I think this sort of thing is way more common than just being limited to these industries.
Big business and/or unions have fought innovation that they see as being counter to their interests all the time.
Case in point, the
Postal Codes in Canada [wikipedia.org] - OMG all the mail sorters will be out of work!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29739743</id>
	<title>Re:Do Away With Copyrights</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1255442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, I don't believe your story.  $20?  5,000 copies per year?  $100,000?  One year of work?  Those all sound like nice round, made-up numbers.  You say that he "just wrote a program", but then you already have yearly numbers?  The fact of the matter is that that scenario is most definitely the exception, not the rule.  When I look around at some small software companies, I've seen companies go out of business, cut-back on staff, ask programmers to go without pay for months at a time.  They aren't raking it in, driving gold-plated cars like you'd make them out to be.
<br> <br>
A far more common situation would be one year of work, $20 a copy, 1,000 copies the first year, 500 copies the second, 200 copies the third year, 100 copies the fourth year.  At those numbers, he'd be getting 1800 x $20 = $36,000 for a year of work, and it's spread-out over four years -- which isn't very good pay for a software developer.  Jeff Vogel (of the Bottom Feeder blog) laid out how much he got paid for a typical game he created a while back.  His numbers were pretty similar to the number I've laid out here.
<br> <br>
Further, even if I really did believe that "your friend" made $100,000 per year *AND* he was consistently making $100,000 per year on an ongoing basis (which you don't actually know since he "just wrote a program" -- instead of "he wrote a program five years ago").  Then what?  Apparently, he created a lot of value for a lot of people.  And, if you abolish copyright, because your jealous, then what?  He'd get $5,000 for a year of work, would decide not to write software anymore, and all those people who were happy to pay him $100,000 / year for his work no longer have the value of that software?  Is that the ideal situation you want to see?
<br> <br>
<i>computer programmers should only get paid for their time actually programming.</i>
<br> <br>
And how, exactly would that work?  In your world, you've abolished copyright.  Do you think that money will just float through the air and land on programmers desks each time they write a few lines of code?  You mention "performance", but you haven't laid out what that means for software developers, since there is no such thing as performing a piece of software.
<br> <br>
<i>Copyrights and patents are unfair, and cater to a small portion of society. Copyrights and patents treat certain industries as if their time is somehow more valuable than the average person.</i>
<br> <br>
Nonsense.  Copyrights give creators a basis on which to negotiate with the consumer.  If the consumer wants to pay the price, if they think the software is worth the money, they can buy it.  Without copyrights, creators have zero power in negotiations - it turns software developers into beggars.  Even though people want their stuff badly enough to pay for it, they'll pay nothing, essentially getting all the value of the programmers work for free, and paying him nothing in return.  Abolishing copyrights treats creators as if their time is worthless, as if their time is somehow less valuable than the average person.
<br> <br>
In general, competition drives down prices and revenue in the software industry.  You used to pay $40 for a crappy game for the Atari 2600 created by one person.  Now, you can get a copy of Killzone 2 for $50.  It cost $70 million dollars and was built by hundreds of people.  The fact that creators can sell their work multiple times means that they can spread-out the costs on more people -- instead of charging $70 million to one person.  All of this means that copyright enables companies and software developers to spend huge amounts of time and effort on a product.  They raise the bar for everyone, and then the company next door has to try harder.  If you eliminate copyright, then expect the amount of time and effort companies put into products to dramatically decline because it simply doesn't make sense to create valuable stuff for society if it won't repay you.  Get used to cheaply-made products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I do n't believe your story .
$ 20 ? 5,000 copies per year ?
$ 100,000 ? One year of work ?
Those all sound like nice round , made-up numbers .
You say that he " just wrote a program " , but then you already have yearly numbers ?
The fact of the matter is that that scenario is most definitely the exception , not the rule .
When I look around at some small software companies , I 've seen companies go out of business , cut-back on staff , ask programmers to go without pay for months at a time .
They are n't raking it in , driving gold-plated cars like you 'd make them out to be .
A far more common situation would be one year of work , $ 20 a copy , 1,000 copies the first year , 500 copies the second , 200 copies the third year , 100 copies the fourth year .
At those numbers , he 'd be getting 1800 x $ 20 = $ 36,000 for a year of work , and it 's spread-out over four years -- which is n't very good pay for a software developer .
Jeff Vogel ( of the Bottom Feeder blog ) laid out how much he got paid for a typical game he created a while back .
His numbers were pretty similar to the number I 've laid out here .
Further , even if I really did believe that " your friend " made $ 100,000 per year * AND * he was consistently making $ 100,000 per year on an ongoing basis ( which you do n't actually know since he " just wrote a program " -- instead of " he wrote a program five years ago " ) .
Then what ?
Apparently , he created a lot of value for a lot of people .
And , if you abolish copyright , because your jealous , then what ?
He 'd get $ 5,000 for a year of work , would decide not to write software anymore , and all those people who were happy to pay him $ 100,000 / year for his work no longer have the value of that software ?
Is that the ideal situation you want to see ?
computer programmers should only get paid for their time actually programming .
And how , exactly would that work ?
In your world , you 've abolished copyright .
Do you think that money will just float through the air and land on programmers desks each time they write a few lines of code ?
You mention " performance " , but you have n't laid out what that means for software developers , since there is no such thing as performing a piece of software .
Copyrights and patents are unfair , and cater to a small portion of society .
Copyrights and patents treat certain industries as if their time is somehow more valuable than the average person .
Nonsense. Copyrights give creators a basis on which to negotiate with the consumer .
If the consumer wants to pay the price , if they think the software is worth the money , they can buy it .
Without copyrights , creators have zero power in negotiations - it turns software developers into beggars .
Even though people want their stuff badly enough to pay for it , they 'll pay nothing , essentially getting all the value of the programmers work for free , and paying him nothing in return .
Abolishing copyrights treats creators as if their time is worthless , as if their time is somehow less valuable than the average person .
In general , competition drives down prices and revenue in the software industry .
You used to pay $ 40 for a crappy game for the Atari 2600 created by one person .
Now , you can get a copy of Killzone 2 for $ 50 .
It cost $ 70 million dollars and was built by hundreds of people .
The fact that creators can sell their work multiple times means that they can spread-out the costs on more people -- instead of charging $ 70 million to one person .
All of this means that copyright enables companies and software developers to spend huge amounts of time and effort on a product .
They raise the bar for everyone , and then the company next door has to try harder .
If you eliminate copyright , then expect the amount of time and effort companies put into products to dramatically decline because it simply does n't make sense to create valuable stuff for society if it wo n't repay you .
Get used to cheaply-made products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I don't believe your story.
$20?  5,000 copies per year?
$100,000?  One year of work?
Those all sound like nice round, made-up numbers.
You say that he "just wrote a program", but then you already have yearly numbers?
The fact of the matter is that that scenario is most definitely the exception, not the rule.
When I look around at some small software companies, I've seen companies go out of business, cut-back on staff, ask programmers to go without pay for months at a time.
They aren't raking it in, driving gold-plated cars like you'd make them out to be.
A far more common situation would be one year of work, $20 a copy, 1,000 copies the first year, 500 copies the second, 200 copies the third year, 100 copies the fourth year.
At those numbers, he'd be getting 1800 x $20 = $36,000 for a year of work, and it's spread-out over four years -- which isn't very good pay for a software developer.
Jeff Vogel (of the Bottom Feeder blog) laid out how much he got paid for a typical game he created a while back.
His numbers were pretty similar to the number I've laid out here.
Further, even if I really did believe that "your friend" made $100,000 per year *AND* he was consistently making $100,000 per year on an ongoing basis (which you don't actually know since he "just wrote a program" -- instead of "he wrote a program five years ago").
Then what?
Apparently, he created a lot of value for a lot of people.
And, if you abolish copyright, because your jealous, then what?
He'd get $5,000 for a year of work, would decide not to write software anymore, and all those people who were happy to pay him $100,000 / year for his work no longer have the value of that software?
Is that the ideal situation you want to see?
computer programmers should only get paid for their time actually programming.
And how, exactly would that work?
In your world, you've abolished copyright.
Do you think that money will just float through the air and land on programmers desks each time they write a few lines of code?
You mention "performance", but you haven't laid out what that means for software developers, since there is no such thing as performing a piece of software.
Copyrights and patents are unfair, and cater to a small portion of society.
Copyrights and patents treat certain industries as if their time is somehow more valuable than the average person.
Nonsense.  Copyrights give creators a basis on which to negotiate with the consumer.
If the consumer wants to pay the price, if they think the software is worth the money, they can buy it.
Without copyrights, creators have zero power in negotiations - it turns software developers into beggars.
Even though people want their stuff badly enough to pay for it, they'll pay nothing, essentially getting all the value of the programmers work for free, and paying him nothing in return.
Abolishing copyrights treats creators as if their time is worthless, as if their time is somehow less valuable than the average person.
In general, competition drives down prices and revenue in the software industry.
You used to pay $40 for a crappy game for the Atari 2600 created by one person.
Now, you can get a copy of Killzone 2 for $50.
It cost $70 million dollars and was built by hundreds of people.
The fact that creators can sell their work multiple times means that they can spread-out the costs on more people -- instead of charging $70 million to one person.
All of this means that copyright enables companies and software developers to spend huge amounts of time and effort on a product.
They raise the bar for everyone, and then the company next door has to try harder.
If you eliminate copyright, then expect the amount of time and effort companies put into products to dramatically decline because it simply doesn't make sense to create valuable stuff for society if it won't repay you.
Get used to cheaply-made products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733039</id>
	<title>100 years is too short</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1255454160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author doesn't go back far enough if he can't find any usefulness deriving from copyrights. At the risk of protecting the RIAA (they abuse the law and its intent), the song Oh Susannah was the #1 hit of 1840 and because of the money it made, there was a huge lawsuit over who got all those entertainment dollars. Without copyright, there wouldn't have been all the money that supported Foster to write more songs, there would simply have been a lot of bad copies. Linux anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author does n't go back far enough if he ca n't find any usefulness deriving from copyrights .
At the risk of protecting the RIAA ( they abuse the law and its intent ) , the song Oh Susannah was the # 1 hit of 1840 and because of the money it made , there was a huge lawsuit over who got all those entertainment dollars .
Without copyright , there would n't have been all the money that supported Foster to write more songs , there would simply have been a lot of bad copies .
Linux anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author doesn't go back far enough if he can't find any usefulness deriving from copyrights.
At the risk of protecting the RIAA (they abuse the law and its intent), the song Oh Susannah was the #1 hit of 1840 and because of the money it made, there was a huge lawsuit over who got all those entertainment dollars.
Without copyright, there wouldn't have been all the money that supported Foster to write more songs, there would simply have been a lot of bad copies.
Linux anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741865</id>
	<title>Re:Quality keeps declining</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1255552680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do we have anything as good as Beethoven symphonies yet?</p><p>What about even approximating Wagner, or Bruckner?</p></div><p>I'd already moderated here, but I have to comment: this is just willful blindness. Of twentieth-century orchestral/"high art" composers, Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky, and Strauss were all at least on a par with Bruckner (and better than Wagner), and Shostakovich's symphonies were as <i>important</i> as Beethoven's and at least as <i>good</i> as Schubert's.</p><p>I'm not very widely versed in orchestral music written since the 1970s -- other than soundtracks, which are usually crap (with notable exceptions). But in my own home town there's Gareth Farr's stuff, which is not half bad; for organ music Naji Hakim is among my favourite composers (and, for my money, the best organ composer since Bach); choral music fans go wild over Taverner, P&auml;rt, and Whitacre; and I'm sure there are plenty of American fans of Elliott Carter's music (I can't stand the stuff, but then I can't stand Wagner either).</p><p>I pause for a moment to note that Stravinsky's second "version" of <i>Petrushka</i> -- "composed" in 1947 -- was "composed" for the express purpose of extending its copyright in the USA, since the <i>actual</i> composition dated to 1911 and was therefore going to become public domain sooner than Stravinsky wanted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we have anything as good as Beethoven symphonies yet ? What about even approximating Wagner , or Bruckner ? I 'd already moderated here , but I have to comment : this is just willful blindness .
Of twentieth-century orchestral/ " high art " composers , Vaughan Williams , Stravinsky , and Strauss were all at least on a par with Bruckner ( and better than Wagner ) , and Shostakovich 's symphonies were as important as Beethoven 's and at least as good as Schubert 's.I 'm not very widely versed in orchestral music written since the 1970s -- other than soundtracks , which are usually crap ( with notable exceptions ) .
But in my own home town there 's Gareth Farr 's stuff , which is not half bad ; for organ music Naji Hakim is among my favourite composers ( and , for my money , the best organ composer since Bach ) ; choral music fans go wild over Taverner , P   rt , and Whitacre ; and I 'm sure there are plenty of American fans of Elliott Carter 's music ( I ca n't stand the stuff , but then I ca n't stand Wagner either ) .I pause for a moment to note that Stravinsky 's second " version " of Petrushka -- " composed " in 1947 -- was " composed " for the express purpose of extending its copyright in the USA , since the actual composition dated to 1911 and was therefore going to become public domain sooner than Stravinsky wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we have anything as good as Beethoven symphonies yet?What about even approximating Wagner, or Bruckner?I'd already moderated here, but I have to comment: this is just willful blindness.
Of twentieth-century orchestral/"high art" composers, Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky, and Strauss were all at least on a par with Bruckner (and better than Wagner), and Shostakovich's symphonies were as important as Beethoven's and at least as good as Schubert's.I'm not very widely versed in orchestral music written since the 1970s -- other than soundtracks, which are usually crap (with notable exceptions).
But in my own home town there's Gareth Farr's stuff, which is not half bad; for organ music Naji Hakim is among my favourite composers (and, for my money, the best organ composer since Bach); choral music fans go wild over Taverner, Pärt, and Whitacre; and I'm sure there are plenty of American fans of Elliott Carter's music (I can't stand the stuff, but then I can't stand Wagner either).I pause for a moment to note that Stravinsky's second "version" of Petrushka -- "composed" in 1947 -- was "composed" for the express purpose of extending its copyright in the USA, since the actual composition dated to 1911 and was therefore going to become public domain sooner than Stravinsky wanted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731789</id>
	<title>Shrink?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?</em> </p><p>
Chelsea Charms.  'Nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What of the national chest ?
Will it not shrink ?
Chelsea Charms .
'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What of the national chest?
Will it not shrink?
Chelsea Charms.
'Nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731467</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with short copyright but making it based on the life of the author is a bad idea. First of all, and this is the most obvious drawback, it encourages murder. Secondly, it's not well suited to handle works made by multiple people (a subset of this being a corporation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with short copyright but making it based on the life of the author is a bad idea .
First of all , and this is the most obvious drawback , it encourages murder .
Secondly , it 's not well suited to handle works made by multiple people ( a subset of this being a corporation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with short copyright but making it based on the life of the author is a bad idea.
First of all, and this is the most obvious drawback, it encourages murder.
Secondly, it's not well suited to handle works made by multiple people (a subset of this being a corporation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731129</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright is not about innovation</title>
	<author>Shrike82</author>
	<datestamp>1255444980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.</p></div></blockquote><p>By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works. Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.</p></div><p>You base your whole argument on a deliberate misinterpretation of his words. We both know that he's talking about the various legal departments and bureaucratic machines that exist <b>solely</b> to manage the copyrights of artists and performers, not the wider music and film industry as a whole, or particular companies that it is comprised of. I'm not championing his point, though I do happen to agree with it. I'm merely pointing out that if your best response is to pedantically point out that companies spearheading copyright campaigns also do other stuff, you need to think a little harder about the case you're trying to make.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I can not think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.By definition , a " copyright industry " would be an industry that produces copyrighted works .
Such industries would not necessarily be creating " innovation in either the creation or distribution of works " and to suggest so is disingenuous.You base your whole argument on a deliberate misinterpretation of his words .
We both know that he 's talking about the various legal departments and bureaucratic machines that exist solely to manage the copyrights of artists and performers , not the wider music and film industry as a whole , or particular companies that it is comprised of .
I 'm not championing his point , though I do happen to agree with it .
I 'm merely pointing out that if your best response is to pedantically point out that companies spearheading copyright campaigns also do other stuff , you need to think a little harder about the case you 're trying to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works.
Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.You base your whole argument on a deliberate misinterpretation of his words.
We both know that he's talking about the various legal departments and bureaucratic machines that exist solely to manage the copyrights of artists and performers, not the wider music and film industry as a whole, or particular companies that it is comprised of.
I'm not championing his point, though I do happen to agree with it.
I'm merely pointing out that if your best response is to pedantically point out that companies spearheading copyright campaigns also do other stuff, you need to think a little harder about the case you're trying to make.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731223</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255445580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- was only for expensive works like books, not incidentals like maps or charts</p></div><p>The production of a quality map or chart has a higher cost than the production of a work of fiction. Either copyright should apply equally to all works, or it should apply to none, for basing it on the cost of creation of the work is impossible to do fairly. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. Copyright as we know it today is a leech sucking creativity out of entertainment, and replacing it with profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- was only for expensive works like books , not incidentals like maps or chartsThe production of a quality map or chart has a higher cost than the production of a work of fiction .
Either copyright should apply equally to all works , or it should apply to none , for basing it on the cost of creation of the work is impossible to do fairly .
Otherwise , I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said .
Copyright as we know it today is a leech sucking creativity out of entertainment , and replacing it with profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- was only for expensive works like books, not incidentals like maps or chartsThe production of a quality map or chart has a higher cost than the production of a work of fiction.
Either copyright should apply equally to all works, or it should apply to none, for basing it on the cost of creation of the work is impossible to do fairly.
Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said.
Copyright as we know it today is a leech sucking creativity out of entertainment, and replacing it with profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732729</id>
	<title>innovation</title>
	<author>MooseTick</author>
	<datestamp>1255452720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."</p><p>I'm no fan of the ridiculous terms of copyright law, but I suspect a lot of innovation has happened as an indirect cause of it. The creation of high tech rendering would likely have never materialized if...</p><p>1. Its creators thought their software could/would be freely copied. ILM and Pixar have spent a lot of bones to do what they can do.<br>2. The creators of movies (Toy Story, Wall-E, Monsters Inc, LOTR, etc)used with that technology thought they couldn't get a return on their multi million $$ investments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I can not think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries .
" I 'm no fan of the ridiculous terms of copyright law , but I suspect a lot of innovation has happened as an indirect cause of it .
The creation of high tech rendering would likely have never materialized if...1 .
Its creators thought their software could/would be freely copied .
ILM and Pixar have spent a lot of bones to do what they can do.2 .
The creators of movies ( Toy Story , Wall-E , Monsters Inc , LOTR , etc ) used with that technology thought they could n't get a return on their multi million $ $ investments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.
"I'm no fan of the ridiculous terms of copyright law, but I suspect a lot of innovation has happened as an indirect cause of it.
The creation of high tech rendering would likely have never materialized if...1.
Its creators thought their software could/would be freely copied.
ILM and Pixar have spent a lot of bones to do what they can do.2.
The creators of movies (Toy Story, Wall-E, Monsters Inc, LOTR, etc)used with that technology thought they couldn't get a return on their multi million $$ investments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255443240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And their Copyright Act of 1790 said the following:</p><p>- for the encouragement of learning<br>- limited term of 14 years with 14 year extension if the *original* author was still alive<br>- libraries, colleges, and private individuals were not subject to the copyright (i.e. fair use)<br>- was only for expensive works like books, not incidentals like maps or charts</p><p>This is the kind of copyright law we should have today, not the perpetual copyright that lasts ~100 years (five generations).  When the original laborer who created the work dies, then the copyright should die as well.  As Jefferson said "the Earth is for the living not the dead," and laws exist to serve the current generation not previous generations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And their Copyright Act of 1790 said the following : - for the encouragement of learning- limited term of 14 years with 14 year extension if the * original * author was still alive- libraries , colleges , and private individuals were not subject to the copyright ( i.e .
fair use ) - was only for expensive works like books , not incidentals like maps or chartsThis is the kind of copyright law we should have today , not the perpetual copyright that lasts ~ 100 years ( five generations ) .
When the original laborer who created the work dies , then the copyright should die as well .
As Jefferson said " the Earth is for the living not the dead , " and laws exist to serve the current generation not previous generations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And their Copyright Act of 1790 said the following:- for the encouragement of learning- limited term of 14 years with 14 year extension if the *original* author was still alive- libraries, colleges, and private individuals were not subject to the copyright (i.e.
fair use)- was only for expensive works like books, not incidentals like maps or chartsThis is the kind of copyright law we should have today, not the perpetual copyright that lasts ~100 years (five generations).
When the original laborer who created the work dies, then the copyright should die as well.
As Jefferson said "the Earth is for the living not the dead," and laws exist to serve the current generation not previous generations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731995</id>
	<title>Re:That quote at the end</title>
	<author>cthulu\_mt</author>
	<datestamp>1255449300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least Michael Bay get's  return on his investment.  I'd like to know what douchebag keeps bankrolling the Wayan's Brother films.
<br> <br>
We could put a man on the moon again with the money they have wasted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Michael Bay get 's return on his investment .
I 'd like to know what douchebag keeps bankrolling the Wayan 's Brother films .
We could put a man on the moon again with the money they have wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Michael Bay get's  return on his investment.
I'd like to know what douchebag keeps bankrolling the Wayan's Brother films.
We could put a man on the moon again with the money they have wasted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732683</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1255452420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>And their Copyright Act of 1790 said the following:</i></p><p><i>- for the encouragement of learning<br>- limited term of 14 years with 14 year extension if the *original* author was still alive<br></i></p><p>Well, actually the author had to take steps to renew the copyright; otherwise it would expire at the end of the first 14 year term. And in fact, for as long as the US had a system of renewal terms (1790-1978) most authors failed to do so, indicating that they didn't even want a copyright of the greatest possible length, since it certainly was no great burden to get it.</p><p><i>- libraries, colleges, and private individuals were not subject to the copyright (i.e. fair use)</i></p><p>No, IIRC, the 1790 Act applied to everyone. But if there were individuals who were reprinting a book for their own personal use, probably no one would notice.</p><p><i>- was only for expensive works like books, not incidentals like maps or charts</i></p><p>Expense had nothing to do with it, and it expressly covered maps, charts, and books.</p><p>The reason to grant a copyright is to provide an incentive, in addition to the already-present 'natural' incentives (e.g. art for art's sake) to encourage the creation and publication of works that otherwise wouldn't be created or published, but at minimal cost to the public, and so as to ultimately enlarge the public domain.</p><p>The first Congress felt that authors and cartographers needed some help, that's all.</p><p><i>This is the kind of copyright law we should have today, not the perpetual copyright that lasts ~100 years (five generations). When the original laborer who created the work dies, then the copyright should die as well.</i></p><p>No, I'd disagree, and anyway, that's not what the 1790 Act did. The Act gave a 14 year term to a living author. If he was still alive, he could renew for another 14 years. But if he died in year 15, the renewal term didn't get cut short. Copyright terms, whatever they are, should have a fixed maximum term of years, completely unrelated to the life of the author, broken up into a number of renewal terms so that if the copyright holder stops caring sooner, the public can benefit sooner.</p><p><i>As Jefferson said "the Earth is for the living not the dead," and laws exist to serve the current generation not previous generations.<br></i></p><p>Indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And their Copyright Act of 1790 said the following : - for the encouragement of learning- limited term of 14 years with 14 year extension if the * original * author was still aliveWell , actually the author had to take steps to renew the copyright ; otherwise it would expire at the end of the first 14 year term .
And in fact , for as long as the US had a system of renewal terms ( 1790-1978 ) most authors failed to do so , indicating that they did n't even want a copyright of the greatest possible length , since it certainly was no great burden to get it.- libraries , colleges , and private individuals were not subject to the copyright ( i.e .
fair use ) No , IIRC , the 1790 Act applied to everyone .
But if there were individuals who were reprinting a book for their own personal use , probably no one would notice.- was only for expensive works like books , not incidentals like maps or chartsExpense had nothing to do with it , and it expressly covered maps , charts , and books.The reason to grant a copyright is to provide an incentive , in addition to the already-present 'natural ' incentives ( e.g .
art for art 's sake ) to encourage the creation and publication of works that otherwise would n't be created or published , but at minimal cost to the public , and so as to ultimately enlarge the public domain.The first Congress felt that authors and cartographers needed some help , that 's all.This is the kind of copyright law we should have today , not the perpetual copyright that lasts ~ 100 years ( five generations ) .
When the original laborer who created the work dies , then the copyright should die as well.No , I 'd disagree , and anyway , that 's not what the 1790 Act did .
The Act gave a 14 year term to a living author .
If he was still alive , he could renew for another 14 years .
But if he died in year 15 , the renewal term did n't get cut short .
Copyright terms , whatever they are , should have a fixed maximum term of years , completely unrelated to the life of the author , broken up into a number of renewal terms so that if the copyright holder stops caring sooner , the public can benefit sooner.As Jefferson said " the Earth is for the living not the dead , " and laws exist to serve the current generation not previous generations.Indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And their Copyright Act of 1790 said the following:- for the encouragement of learning- limited term of 14 years with 14 year extension if the *original* author was still aliveWell, actually the author had to take steps to renew the copyright; otherwise it would expire at the end of the first 14 year term.
And in fact, for as long as the US had a system of renewal terms (1790-1978) most authors failed to do so, indicating that they didn't even want a copyright of the greatest possible length, since it certainly was no great burden to get it.- libraries, colleges, and private individuals were not subject to the copyright (i.e.
fair use)No, IIRC, the 1790 Act applied to everyone.
But if there were individuals who were reprinting a book for their own personal use, probably no one would notice.- was only for expensive works like books, not incidentals like maps or chartsExpense had nothing to do with it, and it expressly covered maps, charts, and books.The reason to grant a copyright is to provide an incentive, in addition to the already-present 'natural' incentives (e.g.
art for art's sake) to encourage the creation and publication of works that otherwise wouldn't be created or published, but at minimal cost to the public, and so as to ultimately enlarge the public domain.The first Congress felt that authors and cartographers needed some help, that's all.This is the kind of copyright law we should have today, not the perpetual copyright that lasts ~100 years (five generations).
When the original laborer who created the work dies, then the copyright should die as well.No, I'd disagree, and anyway, that's not what the 1790 Act did.
The Act gave a 14 year term to a living author.
If he was still alive, he could renew for another 14 years.
But if he died in year 15, the renewal term didn't get cut short.
Copyright terms, whatever they are, should have a fixed maximum term of years, completely unrelated to the life of the author, broken up into a number of renewal terms so that if the copyright holder stops caring sooner, the public can benefit sooner.As Jefferson said "the Earth is for the living not the dead," and laws exist to serve the current generation not previous generations.Indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665</id>
	<title>What's being ignored</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255441740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of those things did significantly change entertainment. Even things like VHS tapes had a major impact on revenues. The studios managed to adapt but the independents took a hit. Now that things started to get better cheap equipment flooded the market with cheap crappy films so they took their hardest hit yet. All of those innovations put together haven't impacted the industries like the internet. With near unlimited bandwidth and an army of people able to crack most any security measures the dam has quite literally broke. People complain about how expensive things are but if you factor in inflation album prices are flat whiles sales numbers drop. Music was overpriced for years but inflation did finally catch up. Movie ticket prices were around $3 in the 70s but you could also buy a nice car for $5,000. A Corvette may have set you back 7K or 8K. The point is some things have gone up far more than entertainment. A bounced check would have run you a $1 back in the 70s where as now it's $35 to $45. A hospital room was around $150, just for the room, now it's $1,500 or more. In many ways entertainment is a bargain. Greed isn't the factor everyone claims it's changing attitudes of consumers. They want more stuff and their incomes have been flat for a decade or more. If you take an iPod you want everyone accepts that as stealing but if you download a movie or song you want hey it's just 1s and 0s. No harm no foul. It's this perception that has changed. Unfortunately content takes money to produce just like iPods so it will affect what's out there. You can have government funding but that means higher taxes and the government decides what you see and listen to. There's the free market but that's what most are rebelling against. Take away the money and you are left with what fans make in their garages. I keep hearing fans can do it better but virtually everything I've seen is poorly written, silly acting and poor production values. Digital effects have improved some of them but a lot of those are pros doing it in their spare time and often with access to studio equipment. If it takes 50K or 100K in equipment how many films will get made when people are doing them in their spare time with a normal day job? As people want more and more expensive toys with their incomes stagnant they will keep cutting corners to buy the toys and the easiest corner they see to cut is downloading rather than buying content. Unfortunately that new iPod may not be as bright and shiny if there's no content to load on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of those things did significantly change entertainment .
Even things like VHS tapes had a major impact on revenues .
The studios managed to adapt but the independents took a hit .
Now that things started to get better cheap equipment flooded the market with cheap crappy films so they took their hardest hit yet .
All of those innovations put together have n't impacted the industries like the internet .
With near unlimited bandwidth and an army of people able to crack most any security measures the dam has quite literally broke .
People complain about how expensive things are but if you factor in inflation album prices are flat whiles sales numbers drop .
Music was overpriced for years but inflation did finally catch up .
Movie ticket prices were around $ 3 in the 70s but you could also buy a nice car for $ 5,000 .
A Corvette may have set you back 7K or 8K .
The point is some things have gone up far more than entertainment .
A bounced check would have run you a $ 1 back in the 70s where as now it 's $ 35 to $ 45 .
A hospital room was around $ 150 , just for the room , now it 's $ 1,500 or more .
In many ways entertainment is a bargain .
Greed is n't the factor everyone claims it 's changing attitudes of consumers .
They want more stuff and their incomes have been flat for a decade or more .
If you take an iPod you want everyone accepts that as stealing but if you download a movie or song you want hey it 's just 1s and 0s .
No harm no foul .
It 's this perception that has changed .
Unfortunately content takes money to produce just like iPods so it will affect what 's out there .
You can have government funding but that means higher taxes and the government decides what you see and listen to .
There 's the free market but that 's what most are rebelling against .
Take away the money and you are left with what fans make in their garages .
I keep hearing fans can do it better but virtually everything I 've seen is poorly written , silly acting and poor production values .
Digital effects have improved some of them but a lot of those are pros doing it in their spare time and often with access to studio equipment .
If it takes 50K or 100K in equipment how many films will get made when people are doing them in their spare time with a normal day job ?
As people want more and more expensive toys with their incomes stagnant they will keep cutting corners to buy the toys and the easiest corner they see to cut is downloading rather than buying content .
Unfortunately that new iPod may not be as bright and shiny if there 's no content to load on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of those things did significantly change entertainment.
Even things like VHS tapes had a major impact on revenues.
The studios managed to adapt but the independents took a hit.
Now that things started to get better cheap equipment flooded the market with cheap crappy films so they took their hardest hit yet.
All of those innovations put together haven't impacted the industries like the internet.
With near unlimited bandwidth and an army of people able to crack most any security measures the dam has quite literally broke.
People complain about how expensive things are but if you factor in inflation album prices are flat whiles sales numbers drop.
Music was overpriced for years but inflation did finally catch up.
Movie ticket prices were around $3 in the 70s but you could also buy a nice car for $5,000.
A Corvette may have set you back 7K or 8K.
The point is some things have gone up far more than entertainment.
A bounced check would have run you a $1 back in the 70s where as now it's $35 to $45.
A hospital room was around $150, just for the room, now it's $1,500 or more.
In many ways entertainment is a bargain.
Greed isn't the factor everyone claims it's changing attitudes of consumers.
They want more stuff and their incomes have been flat for a decade or more.
If you take an iPod you want everyone accepts that as stealing but if you download a movie or song you want hey it's just 1s and 0s.
No harm no foul.
It's this perception that has changed.
Unfortunately content takes money to produce just like iPods so it will affect what's out there.
You can have government funding but that means higher taxes and the government decides what you see and listen to.
There's the free market but that's what most are rebelling against.
Take away the money and you are left with what fans make in their garages.
I keep hearing fans can do it better but virtually everything I've seen is poorly written, silly acting and poor production values.
Digital effects have improved some of them but a lot of those are pros doing it in their spare time and often with access to studio equipment.
If it takes 50K or 100K in equipment how many films will get made when people are doing them in their spare time with a normal day job?
As people want more and more expensive toys with their incomes stagnant they will keep cutting corners to buy the toys and the easiest corner they see to cut is downloading rather than buying content.
Unfortunately that new iPod may not be as bright and shiny if there's no content to load on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732581</id>
	<title>Re:What's being ignored</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1255452000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shakespeare's wealth&lt;Bogart's wealth&lt;Tom Cruise's wealth. Mass distribution has increased entertainers' fortunes despite inflation and easier piracy. And live performances in arenas and theaters still generate money as they always have. CDs and DVDs were just profit bonuses (the majority of which went to the corporate distributors anyway).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shakespeare 's wealth &lt; Bogart 's wealth &lt; Tom Cruise 's wealth .
Mass distribution has increased entertainers ' fortunes despite inflation and easier piracy .
And live performances in arenas and theaters still generate money as they always have .
CDs and DVDs were just profit bonuses ( the majority of which went to the corporate distributors anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shakespeare's wealth&lt;Bogart's wealth&lt;Tom Cruise's wealth.
Mass distribution has increased entertainers' fortunes despite inflation and easier piracy.
And live performances in arenas and theaters still generate money as they always have.
CDs and DVDs were just profit bonuses (the majority of which went to the corporate distributors anyway).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29751279</id>
	<title>Re:Do Away With Copyrights</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1255522260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny how Slashdot recently added the story: "Road To Riches Doesn't Run Through the App Store", showing how your '$100,000 per year ad-infinitum for one year of work' doesn't reflect the reality of software development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how Slashdot recently added the story : " Road To Riches Does n't Run Through the App Store " , showing how your ' $ 100,000 per year ad-infinitum for one year of work ' does n't reflect the reality of software development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how Slashdot recently added the story: "Road To Riches Doesn't Run Through the App Store", showing how your '$100,000 per year ad-infinitum for one year of work' doesn't reflect the reality of software development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731935</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa was right.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255449060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music. They still exist, obviously, but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did.</i></p><p>[citation needed]</p><p>Here's a citation of a refutation of your comment: <a href="http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/events.from.10-08-2009.to.10-11-2009-8.0.0.0.1.3.s0.html" title="illinoistimes.com">http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/events.from.10-08-2009.to.10-11-2009-8.0.0.0.1.3.s0.html</a> [illinoistimes.com]</p><p>I haven't been to a big ticket concert in years, but I see live music quite often in local bars. The last band I saw was Nothing But Trouble (NBT), and I'll be hearing some live music this Saturday as well. Bit name concerts are WAY overpriced. When there's a big name concert here, a rough estimate says more people are listening to local guys in bars than big shots in the auditorium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music .
They still exist , obviously , but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did .
[ citation needed ] Here 's a citation of a refutation of your comment : http : //www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/events.from.10-08-2009.to.10-11-2009-8.0.0.0.1.3.s0.html [ illinoistimes.com ] I have n't been to a big ticket concert in years , but I see live music quite often in local bars .
The last band I saw was Nothing But Trouble ( NBT ) , and I 'll be hearing some live music this Saturday as well .
Bit name concerts are WAY overpriced .
When there 's a big name concert here , a rough estimate says more people are listening to local guys in bars than big shots in the auditorium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music.
They still exist, obviously, but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did.
[citation needed]Here's a citation of a refutation of your comment: http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/events.from.10-08-2009.to.10-11-2009-8.0.0.0.1.3.s0.html [illinoistimes.com]I haven't been to a big ticket concert in years, but I see live music quite often in local bars.
The last band I saw was Nothing But Trouble (NBT), and I'll be hearing some live music this Saturday as well.
Bit name concerts are WAY overpriced.
When there's a big name concert here, a rough estimate says more people are listening to local guys in bars than big shots in the auditorium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29735029</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1255463040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're a business, not a democracy.  I'd expect them to do everything to protect their business.  I'm unsure of what your point is.  Should I be angry when businesses behave like businesses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're a business , not a democracy .
I 'd expect them to do everything to protect their business .
I 'm unsure of what your point is .
Should I be angry when businesses behave like businesses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're a business, not a democracy.
I'd expect them to do everything to protect their business.
I'm unsure of what your point is.
Should I be angry when businesses behave like businesses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730687</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1255442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As technology improves, we are eventually going to forget about copyrights;</p></div></blockquote><p>The way things are going, it looks like you're right. They're going to be completely forgotten, right about the time people start completely forgetting their moral obligation to pay the artist. That's right about the time that culture will (almost) completely be wiped out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As technology improves , we are eventually going to forget about copyrights ; The way things are going , it looks like you 're right .
They 're going to be completely forgotten , right about the time people start completely forgetting their moral obligation to pay the artist .
That 's right about the time that culture will ( almost ) completely be wiped out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As technology improves, we are eventually going to forget about copyrights;The way things are going, it looks like you're right.
They're going to be completely forgotten, right about the time people start completely forgetting their moral obligation to pay the artist.
That's right about the time that culture will (almost) completely be wiped out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730617</id>
	<title>Systematic copyright indoctrination</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1255441320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just placed an order for the "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars" book.  I am looking forward to reading it.</p><p>I think that we've discussed it before, but there has also been 100 years of systematic indoctrination about copyright in our schools.  In grad school I listened to an outside speaker come in and say that the institution of copyright was created to make sure that companies make money.  She believed that, too, as that is what "common knowledge" now says copyright is.</p><p>The hysteria is very, very deep.  Now when you try to explain the Constitutional reasoning behind copyright you only get blank stares and laughs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just placed an order for the " Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars " book .
I am looking forward to reading it.I think that we 've discussed it before , but there has also been 100 years of systematic indoctrination about copyright in our schools .
In grad school I listened to an outside speaker come in and say that the institution of copyright was created to make sure that companies make money .
She believed that , too , as that is what " common knowledge " now says copyright is.The hysteria is very , very deep .
Now when you try to explain the Constitutional reasoning behind copyright you only get blank stares and laughs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just placed an order for the "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars" book.
I am looking forward to reading it.I think that we've discussed it before, but there has also been 100 years of systematic indoctrination about copyright in our schools.
In grad school I listened to an outside speaker come in and say that the institution of copyright was created to make sure that companies make money.
She believed that, too, as that is what "common knowledge" now says copyright is.The hysteria is very, very deep.
Now when you try to explain the Constitutional reasoning behind copyright you only get blank stares and laughs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477</id>
	<title>Sousa was right.</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1255440180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music. They still exist, obviously, but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music .
They still exist , obviously , but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music.
They still exist, obviously, but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730417</id>
	<title>Let me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255439700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me be the first to say, "no duh".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me be the first to say , " no duh " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me be the first to say, "no duh".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731049</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright is not about innovation</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1255444560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DVD invented as a data storage medium by a consortium of computer companies including Sony, and extended to store movies the consortium was founded by Computer companies and the movie companies joined it later<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Blu-Ray were invented mostly by Sony, as a data storage medium - the Movie companies (including Sony's movie division) only got involved when the standards for movie formats for these discs were being decided<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>So Sony has divisions which deal in Movies and Music, and divisions which don't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and they work together when they need to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but it does not mean the Copyright industries innovate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DVD invented as a data storage medium by a consortium of computer companies including Sony , and extended to store movies the consortium was founded by Computer companies and the movie companies joined it later ....Blu-Ray were invented mostly by Sony , as a data storage medium - the Movie companies ( including Sony 's movie division ) only got involved when the standards for movie formats for these discs were being decided ....So Sony has divisions which deal in Movies and Music , and divisions which do n't ... and they work together when they need to ... but it does not mean the Copyright industries innovate .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVD invented as a data storage medium by a consortium of computer companies including Sony, and extended to store movies the consortium was founded by Computer companies and the movie companies joined it later ....Blu-Ray were invented mostly by Sony, as a data storage medium - the Movie companies (including Sony's movie division) only got involved when the standards for movie formats for these discs were being decided ....So Sony has divisions which deal in Movies and Music, and divisions which don't ... and they work together when they need to ... but it does not mean the Copyright industries innovate ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733951</id>
	<title>Re:Money for nothing and your chicks for free</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1255458240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we are coming to a major fork in the road.  Since the 1980s anything digital has been pretty much fair game.  With the addition of the Internet copying has become more and more prevalent.  Today there are some folks (mostly over 40 or 50) that will pay for a concert or an original work.</p><p>The rest of society, mostly under 30, are used to the idea of getting stuff for free and see little difference between the "original" recording they can play on a high-end stereo system and a medium-quality MP3 they have on an iPod.  Certainly when the difference is $20 between the two there is no value proposition for them that allows them to see the "original" recording has anywhere near a $20 value.</p><p>Copyright industrialists or not, creative works simply aren't worth as much as they used to.  And when the 40+ folks die off there will be virtually nobody left that is going to pay when free is an option.  So far, almost nobody has figured out a good way of making sure free isn't an option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we are coming to a major fork in the road .
Since the 1980s anything digital has been pretty much fair game .
With the addition of the Internet copying has become more and more prevalent .
Today there are some folks ( mostly over 40 or 50 ) that will pay for a concert or an original work.The rest of society , mostly under 30 , are used to the idea of getting stuff for free and see little difference between the " original " recording they can play on a high-end stereo system and a medium-quality MP3 they have on an iPod .
Certainly when the difference is $ 20 between the two there is no value proposition for them that allows them to see the " original " recording has anywhere near a $ 20 value.Copyright industrialists or not , creative works simply are n't worth as much as they used to .
And when the 40 + folks die off there will be virtually nobody left that is going to pay when free is an option .
So far , almost nobody has figured out a good way of making sure free is n't an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we are coming to a major fork in the road.
Since the 1980s anything digital has been pretty much fair game.
With the addition of the Internet copying has become more and more prevalent.
Today there are some folks (mostly over 40 or 50) that will pay for a concert or an original work.The rest of society, mostly under 30, are used to the idea of getting stuff for free and see little difference between the "original" recording they can play on a high-end stereo system and a medium-quality MP3 they have on an iPod.
Certainly when the difference is $20 between the two there is no value proposition for them that allows them to see the "original" recording has anywhere near a $20 value.Copyright industrialists or not, creative works simply aren't worth as much as they used to.
And when the 40+ folks die off there will be virtually nobody left that is going to pay when free is an option.
So far, almost nobody has figured out a good way of making sure free isn't an option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733747</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa had a point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255457400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, that's because recording nowadays <i>universally</i> involves a whole bunch of compression to make it sound professional and even and nice. Quite often it's overdubbed too, and I won't even get into digital manipulation like autotune. Singers have <i>never</i> sounded the same in a studio recording as they have live, and the cheapness of effects processing today means quality touching up is available to everyone.</p><p>You don't go to a live performance for harmonic-perfect reproduction of a particular sound, anyway. You go for the experience. If you just want an identical waveform to the album, listen to the album and stop bitching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , that 's because recording nowadays universally involves a whole bunch of compression to make it sound professional and even and nice .
Quite often it 's overdubbed too , and I wo n't even get into digital manipulation like autotune .
Singers have never sounded the same in a studio recording as they have live , and the cheapness of effects processing today means quality touching up is available to everyone.You do n't go to a live performance for harmonic-perfect reproduction of a particular sound , anyway .
You go for the experience .
If you just want an identical waveform to the album , listen to the album and stop bitching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, that's because recording nowadays universally involves a whole bunch of compression to make it sound professional and even and nice.
Quite often it's overdubbed too, and I won't even get into digital manipulation like autotune.
Singers have never sounded the same in a studio recording as they have live, and the cheapness of effects processing today means quality touching up is available to everyone.You don't go to a live performance for harmonic-perfect reproduction of a particular sound, anyway.
You go for the experience.
If you just want an identical waveform to the album, listen to the album and stop bitching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730953</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255443900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've got trouble in River City with a capital 'T' that rhymes with 'B' and stands for 'Bittorrent!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've got trouble in River City with a capital 'T ' that rhymes with 'B ' and stands for 'Bittorrent !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've got trouble in River City with a capital 'T' that rhymes with 'B' and stands for 'Bittorrent!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731507</id>
	<title>Player Pianos</title>
	<author>adavies42</author>
	<datestamp>1255447260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forge player pianos, subject of <a href="http://digital-law-online.info/cases/209US1.htm" title="digital-law-online.info">one of the earliest copyright suits over technology</a> [digital-law-online.info].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forge player pianos , subject of one of the earliest copyright suits over technology [ digital-law-online.info ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forge player pianos, subject of one of the earliest copyright suits over technology [digital-law-online.info].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733257</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1255455240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Either copyright should apply equally to all works, or it should apply to none,</i> </p><p>I disagree. We should be careful in determining which classes of works we should grant copyrights to, and which we should not, and what the maximum lengths of the terms for various classes of works should be.</p><p>This is because copyright is meant to be an incentive to create and publish works, but as minimally restrictive upon the public as possible in scope, and of minimal length so that the work enters the public domain as quickly as possible.</p><p>Ideally a copyright would be exactly the bare minimum that was required to get the author to create his work; this might not be what the author would want, but what the author could live with. Unfortunately, the Copyright Office lacks the large number of mind readers they'd need to do that.</p><p>But we can still get fairly close.</p><p>We know that copyright is merely an economic incentive. A copyright won't make an author famous or well respected or anything. It doesn't even guarantee wealth; like a lens it merely focuses some of the wealth that can be derived from a work, with the actual amount determined by the market. Thus a copyright on a flop is just as powerful as a copyright on a smash hit, but the flop has less money to concentrate to begin with. Copyright isn't even the only economic incentive; plenty of authors get paid for their labor without needing copyrights, and plenty of authors can sell specific copies of works without needing copyrights to protect them (e.g. anyone who could and would buy a painting from Picasso was not going to buy a cheap poster as a substitute; they wanted a specific copy, not any copy).</p><p>We know also that most works have no copyright-related economic value at all. Of the few that do, most are of modest value, and most of that value is concentrated in the first little while after publication in a given medium. For example, a movie has most of its ticket sales on its opening weekend. Each week thereafter, sales usually die down. Eventually it no longer sells enough tickets to remain in the first run theater. It goes to the second run theater and again, has brisk sales at first, and then winds down. It goes to Pay Per View, same thing. It is released on home video for rental and sales, and again the same thing. It goes to premium cable networks, then basic cable networks, then broadcast networks. Eventually it's lucky if someone wants to show it as the late night movie at 4 am.</p><p>All works go through this sooner or later. A daily newspaper is only good for birdcages or fishwrapping as soon as the next day; a basic math textbook can last for decades. Most works hang out somewhere in between. A work that has lasting popularity is as rare as a winning lottery ticket, and even it has a cycle to it (I have a copy of Star Wars, if I buy another copy, it'll be a while).</p><p>So since copyright incentivizes authors according to the money they can make, and since most of the money a work will ever make is made pretty quickly, with just how quickly varying based on what kind of work it is (book, sound recording, movie, newspaper, computer program, etc.) we can vary the term length based on the kind of work and thus provide almost as much incentive as we do now, but at a far lower cost to the public by reducing term lengths, so that the work is in the public domain sooner.</p><p>So first we need to require authors to apply for copyrights for their finished or published works, rather than just getting them automatically (I'm fine with modest protection to unpublished works in progress, so that the author need not fear someone running away with his manuscript, but even that should have some limits, and be no substitute for a real copyright on a published work). This way authors that are not incentivized by copyright at all will probably fail to apply, even though it should be quite easy, and the public can reap the rewards immediately. Authors who are incentivized by copyright will likely care enough to fill in the simple form and pay the tok</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either copyright should apply equally to all works , or it should apply to none , I disagree .
We should be careful in determining which classes of works we should grant copyrights to , and which we should not , and what the maximum lengths of the terms for various classes of works should be.This is because copyright is meant to be an incentive to create and publish works , but as minimally restrictive upon the public as possible in scope , and of minimal length so that the work enters the public domain as quickly as possible.Ideally a copyright would be exactly the bare minimum that was required to get the author to create his work ; this might not be what the author would want , but what the author could live with .
Unfortunately , the Copyright Office lacks the large number of mind readers they 'd need to do that.But we can still get fairly close.We know that copyright is merely an economic incentive .
A copyright wo n't make an author famous or well respected or anything .
It does n't even guarantee wealth ; like a lens it merely focuses some of the wealth that can be derived from a work , with the actual amount determined by the market .
Thus a copyright on a flop is just as powerful as a copyright on a smash hit , but the flop has less money to concentrate to begin with .
Copyright is n't even the only economic incentive ; plenty of authors get paid for their labor without needing copyrights , and plenty of authors can sell specific copies of works without needing copyrights to protect them ( e.g .
anyone who could and would buy a painting from Picasso was not going to buy a cheap poster as a substitute ; they wanted a specific copy , not any copy ) .We know also that most works have no copyright-related economic value at all .
Of the few that do , most are of modest value , and most of that value is concentrated in the first little while after publication in a given medium .
For example , a movie has most of its ticket sales on its opening weekend .
Each week thereafter , sales usually die down .
Eventually it no longer sells enough tickets to remain in the first run theater .
It goes to the second run theater and again , has brisk sales at first , and then winds down .
It goes to Pay Per View , same thing .
It is released on home video for rental and sales , and again the same thing .
It goes to premium cable networks , then basic cable networks , then broadcast networks .
Eventually it 's lucky if someone wants to show it as the late night movie at 4 am.All works go through this sooner or later .
A daily newspaper is only good for birdcages or fishwrapping as soon as the next day ; a basic math textbook can last for decades .
Most works hang out somewhere in between .
A work that has lasting popularity is as rare as a winning lottery ticket , and even it has a cycle to it ( I have a copy of Star Wars , if I buy another copy , it 'll be a while ) .So since copyright incentivizes authors according to the money they can make , and since most of the money a work will ever make is made pretty quickly , with just how quickly varying based on what kind of work it is ( book , sound recording , movie , newspaper , computer program , etc .
) we can vary the term length based on the kind of work and thus provide almost as much incentive as we do now , but at a far lower cost to the public by reducing term lengths , so that the work is in the public domain sooner.So first we need to require authors to apply for copyrights for their finished or published works , rather than just getting them automatically ( I 'm fine with modest protection to unpublished works in progress , so that the author need not fear someone running away with his manuscript , but even that should have some limits , and be no substitute for a real copyright on a published work ) .
This way authors that are not incentivized by copyright at all will probably fail to apply , even though it should be quite easy , and the public can reap the rewards immediately .
Authors who are incentivized by copyright will likely care enough to fill in the simple form and pay the tok</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Either copyright should apply equally to all works, or it should apply to none, I disagree.
We should be careful in determining which classes of works we should grant copyrights to, and which we should not, and what the maximum lengths of the terms for various classes of works should be.This is because copyright is meant to be an incentive to create and publish works, but as minimally restrictive upon the public as possible in scope, and of minimal length so that the work enters the public domain as quickly as possible.Ideally a copyright would be exactly the bare minimum that was required to get the author to create his work; this might not be what the author would want, but what the author could live with.
Unfortunately, the Copyright Office lacks the large number of mind readers they'd need to do that.But we can still get fairly close.We know that copyright is merely an economic incentive.
A copyright won't make an author famous or well respected or anything.
It doesn't even guarantee wealth; like a lens it merely focuses some of the wealth that can be derived from a work, with the actual amount determined by the market.
Thus a copyright on a flop is just as powerful as a copyright on a smash hit, but the flop has less money to concentrate to begin with.
Copyright isn't even the only economic incentive; plenty of authors get paid for their labor without needing copyrights, and plenty of authors can sell specific copies of works without needing copyrights to protect them (e.g.
anyone who could and would buy a painting from Picasso was not going to buy a cheap poster as a substitute; they wanted a specific copy, not any copy).We know also that most works have no copyright-related economic value at all.
Of the few that do, most are of modest value, and most of that value is concentrated in the first little while after publication in a given medium.
For example, a movie has most of its ticket sales on its opening weekend.
Each week thereafter, sales usually die down.
Eventually it no longer sells enough tickets to remain in the first run theater.
It goes to the second run theater and again, has brisk sales at first, and then winds down.
It goes to Pay Per View, same thing.
It is released on home video for rental and sales, and again the same thing.
It goes to premium cable networks, then basic cable networks, then broadcast networks.
Eventually it's lucky if someone wants to show it as the late night movie at 4 am.All works go through this sooner or later.
A daily newspaper is only good for birdcages or fishwrapping as soon as the next day; a basic math textbook can last for decades.
Most works hang out somewhere in between.
A work that has lasting popularity is as rare as a winning lottery ticket, and even it has a cycle to it (I have a copy of Star Wars, if I buy another copy, it'll be a while).So since copyright incentivizes authors according to the money they can make, and since most of the money a work will ever make is made pretty quickly, with just how quickly varying based on what kind of work it is (book, sound recording, movie, newspaper, computer program, etc.
) we can vary the term length based on the kind of work and thus provide almost as much incentive as we do now, but at a far lower cost to the public by reducing term lengths, so that the work is in the public domain sooner.So first we need to require authors to apply for copyrights for their finished or published works, rather than just getting them automatically (I'm fine with modest protection to unpublished works in progress, so that the author need not fear someone running away with his manuscript, but even that should have some limits, and be no substitute for a real copyright on a published work).
This way authors that are not incentivized by copyright at all will probably fail to apply, even though it should be quite easy, and the public can reap the rewards immediately.
Authors who are incentivized by copyright will likely care enough to fill in the simple form and pay the tok</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731489</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255447080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's what Thomas Jefferson (found of the democratic party)</p></div><p>You <i>do</i> realize that the democratic party of his time was completely different then the one that exists today right? As in completely different ideals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what Thomas Jefferson ( found of the democratic party ) You do realize that the democratic party of his time was completely different then the one that exists today right ?
As in completely different ideals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what Thomas Jefferson (found of the democratic party)You do realize that the democratic party of his time was completely different then the one that exists today right?
As in completely different ideals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730579</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255440900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, "To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt."</p><p>I think copyright, and IP law in general has a legitimate and defensible purpose. That said, IP policy is essentially made without any regard to facts (you could argue that about a lot of policy, but in IP it's particularly bad). The fact that one can violate copyright law so easily, without intending it, and the fact that so much stuff of so little value is copyrighted, as well as really old stuff, breeds contempt of copyright law altogether.</p><p>The legitimacy of copyright law <i>might</i> be salvaged by cutting down the length of terms drastically, or otherwise changing the policy so that it is actually sensible. Barring that, though, as long as some written works from 1924 are still copyrighted, can you really blame people for thinking the whole thing is ridiculous?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said , " To make laws that man can not , and will not obey , serves to bring all law into contempt .
" I think copyright , and IP law in general has a legitimate and defensible purpose .
That said , IP policy is essentially made without any regard to facts ( you could argue that about a lot of policy , but in IP it 's particularly bad ) .
The fact that one can violate copyright law so easily , without intending it , and the fact that so much stuff of so little value is copyrighted , as well as really old stuff , breeds contempt of copyright law altogether.The legitimacy of copyright law might be salvaged by cutting down the length of terms drastically , or otherwise changing the policy so that it is actually sensible .
Barring that , though , as long as some written works from 1924 are still copyrighted , can you really blame people for thinking the whole thing is ridiculous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, "To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
"I think copyright, and IP law in general has a legitimate and defensible purpose.
That said, IP policy is essentially made without any regard to facts (you could argue that about a lot of policy, but in IP it's particularly bad).
The fact that one can violate copyright law so easily, without intending it, and the fact that so much stuff of so little value is copyrighted, as well as really old stuff, breeds contempt of copyright law altogether.The legitimacy of copyright law might be salvaged by cutting down the length of terms drastically, or otherwise changing the policy so that it is actually sensible.
Barring that, though, as long as some written works from 1924 are still copyrighted, can you really blame people for thinking the whole thing is ridiculous?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29740683</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>bandmassa</author>
	<datestamp>1255450500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens."<br> <br>

PIRATE!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If it was up to the * * AAs , we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens .
" PIRATE ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.
" 

PIRATE!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731819</id>
	<title>Re:JPS was right!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When was the last time you gathered around the family piano to sing?</i></p><p>Never, thank God, and you would thank God too if you had ever heard me sing.</p><p>I was in choir in high school, because I had to be in *something* for that period. They didn't let me actually sing. I stood at the back and mouthed the words. I thank Edison for sound recording every time I'm foolish enough to raise my voice in what, by default, must be called song because it's not authentic enough for a donkey's bray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you gathered around the family piano to sing ? Never , thank God , and you would thank God too if you had ever heard me sing.I was in choir in high school , because I had to be in * something * for that period .
They did n't let me actually sing .
I stood at the back and mouthed the words .
I thank Edison for sound recording every time I 'm foolish enough to raise my voice in what , by default , must be called song because it 's not authentic enough for a donkey 's bray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you gathered around the family piano to sing?Never, thank God, and you would thank God too if you had ever heard me sing.I was in choir in high school, because I had to be in *something* for that period.
They didn't let me actually sing.
I stood at the back and mouthed the words.
I thank Edison for sound recording every time I'm foolish enough to raise my voice in what, by default, must be called song because it's not authentic enough for a donkey's bray.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29734717</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255461420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a better, more constructive alternative to boycott and piracy - support the people that release their work under creative commons or other less restrictive licenses, for free or cheap or for what you would like to give them. There's many of us around now, sufficient (in some fields at least) that you would never have to get on the **AA's turf and yet enjoy yourself for the rest of your life. As an upshot, the more you support free content, the better that content is bound to get.</p><p>To use an IT analogy, if you disagree with Windows' pricing, don't pirate Windows, use Linux instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a better , more constructive alternative to boycott and piracy - support the people that release their work under creative commons or other less restrictive licenses , for free or cheap or for what you would like to give them .
There 's many of us around now , sufficient ( in some fields at least ) that you would never have to get on the * * AA 's turf and yet enjoy yourself for the rest of your life .
As an upshot , the more you support free content , the better that content is bound to get.To use an IT analogy , if you disagree with Windows ' pricing , do n't pirate Windows , use Linux instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a better, more constructive alternative to boycott and piracy - support the people that release their work under creative commons or other less restrictive licenses, for free or cheap or for what you would like to give them.
There's many of us around now, sufficient (in some fields at least) that you would never have to get on the **AA's turf and yet enjoy yourself for the rest of your life.
As an upshot, the more you support free content, the better that content is bound to get.To use an IT analogy, if you disagree with Windows' pricing, don't pirate Windows, use Linux instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730695</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa was right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255442100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And note that has nothing to do with the media cartels controlling new technology - that's just the sad state of Americans that are willing to buy their culture instead of participate in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And note that has nothing to do with the media cartels controlling new technology - that 's just the sad state of Americans that are willing to buy their culture instead of participate in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And note that has nothing to do with the media cartels controlling new technology - that's just the sad state of Americans that are willing to buy their culture instead of participate in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29738865</id>
	<title>Re:What the geek choses to forget.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255435860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>     westlake wrote:   </b></p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Jefferson was part of the slave-holding elite.</p><p>He didn't actually own the slaves - they were owned by bankers in London who forbade Jefferson from freeing the slaves (as Washington and other founders did).  Nevertheless Jefferson made many proposals to free the slaves within the State of Virginia, such as sending them back to Africa where they originally came from (an idea that some slaves followed, to create modernday Liberia).   Another idea he had was to buy the slaves directly and then free them, or converting them from slaves to paid laborers (by law), but his efforts were ignored by his fellow Virginians.</p><p>Even in the declaration of independence Jefferson wrote:   <i>   "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life &amp; liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating &amp; carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought &amp; sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, &amp; murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former<br>crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he  urges them to commit against the lives of another."  </i>   But of course that was struck.</p><p>Jefferson was an idealist, much like our current president Obama is an idealist, but just as Obama has failed to pass his Public Option Healthcare due to others standing in the way, so too did Jefferson fail to exterminate slavery due to others unwillingness to cooperate.  So Jefferson was not a perfect.  Gee what a surprise.</p><p>BTW there was one way that Jefferson did succeed:</p><p><b>  Ever heard of the phrase "separation of church and state"?      Liberals such as yourself are fond of quoting it -  </b>   well you are quoting Jefferson.  You can't have it both ways - enshrining his words as they were a magical incantation, while calling him a "aristocratic-anarchic-libertarian elitist" asshole.  That just makes you look hypocritical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>westlake wrote : &gt; &gt; &gt; Jefferson was part of the slave-holding elite.He did n't actually own the slaves - they were owned by bankers in London who forbade Jefferson from freeing the slaves ( as Washington and other founders did ) .
Nevertheless Jefferson made many proposals to free the slaves within the State of Virginia , such as sending them back to Africa where they originally came from ( an idea that some slaves followed , to create modernday Liberia ) .
Another idea he had was to buy the slaves directly and then free them , or converting them from slaves to paid laborers ( by law ) , but his efforts were ignored by his fellow Virginians.Even in the declaration of independence Jefferson wrote : " he has waged cruel war against human nature itself , violating it 's most sacred rights of life &amp; liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him , captivating &amp; carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere , or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither .
this piratical warfare , the opprobrium of infidel powers , is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain .
determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought &amp; sold , he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce ; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die , he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us , and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them , &amp; murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them ; thus paying off formercrimes committed against the liberties of one people , with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another .
" But of course that was struck.Jefferson was an idealist , much like our current president Obama is an idealist , but just as Obama has failed to pass his Public Option Healthcare due to others standing in the way , so too did Jefferson fail to exterminate slavery due to others unwillingness to cooperate .
So Jefferson was not a perfect .
Gee what a surprise.BTW there was one way that Jefferson did succeed : Ever heard of the phrase " separation of church and state " ?
Liberals such as yourself are fond of quoting it - well you are quoting Jefferson .
You ca n't have it both ways - enshrining his words as they were a magical incantation , while calling him a " aristocratic-anarchic-libertarian elitist " asshole .
That just makes you look hypocritical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     westlake wrote:   &gt;&gt;&gt;Jefferson was part of the slave-holding elite.He didn't actually own the slaves - they were owned by bankers in London who forbade Jefferson from freeing the slaves (as Washington and other founders did).
Nevertheless Jefferson made many proposals to free the slaves within the State of Virginia, such as sending them back to Africa where they originally came from (an idea that some slaves followed, to create modernday Liberia).
Another idea he had was to buy the slaves directly and then free them, or converting them from slaves to paid laborers (by law), but his efforts were ignored by his fellow Virginians.Even in the declaration of independence Jefferson wrote:      "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life &amp; liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating &amp; carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.
this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain.
determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought &amp; sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, &amp; murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off formercrimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he  urges them to commit against the lives of another.
"     But of course that was struck.Jefferson was an idealist, much like our current president Obama is an idealist, but just as Obama has failed to pass his Public Option Healthcare due to others standing in the way, so too did Jefferson fail to exterminate slavery due to others unwillingness to cooperate.
So Jefferson was not a perfect.
Gee what a surprise.BTW there was one way that Jefferson did succeed:  Ever heard of the phrase "separation of church and state"?
Liberals such as yourself are fond of quoting it -     well you are quoting Jefferson.
You can't have it both ways - enshrining his words as they were a magical incantation, while calling him a "aristocratic-anarchic-libertarian elitist" asshole.
That just makes you look hypocritical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731431</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa was right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>naval gazing</p></div> </blockquote><p>Ah yes  - sitting by the sea, watching the ships. An enjoyable hobby with a long history.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>naval gazing Ah yes - sitting by the sea , watching the ships .
An enjoyable hobby with a long history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>naval gazing Ah yes  - sitting by the sea, watching the ships.
An enjoyable hobby with a long history.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707</id>
	<title>Re:Sousa was right.</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1255442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music.</p></div></blockquote><p>You don't get out much, do you?</p><p>Where I live there is live music available somewhere in the town <em>every single day of the week</em>.  In fact, I went to a music festival Sunday that was going on all weekend long.  I believe it was called <a href="http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/rocktoberfest-2009-lineup/Content?oid=1409703" title="charlestoncitypaper.com">Rocktoberfest</a> [charlestoncitypaper.com] and had 98 local bands?</p><p>What you're seeing is natural competition for people's time that every source of entertainment from naval gazing to youtube, to video games, to movie theaters.  It's not that recording technology and radio obliterated small scale stuff.  It's that there's <em>so much else to do</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music.You do n't get out much , do you ? Where I live there is live music available somewhere in the town every single day of the week .
In fact , I went to a music festival Sunday that was going on all weekend long .
I believe it was called Rocktoberfest [ charlestoncitypaper.com ] and had 98 local bands ? What you 're seeing is natural competition for people 's time that every source of entertainment from naval gazing to youtube , to video games , to movie theaters .
It 's not that recording technology and radio obliterated small scale stuff .
It 's that there 's so much else to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music.You don't get out much, do you?Where I live there is live music available somewhere in the town every single day of the week.
In fact, I went to a music festival Sunday that was going on all weekend long.
I believe it was called Rocktoberfest [charlestoncitypaper.com] and had 98 local bands?What you're seeing is natural competition for people's time that every source of entertainment from naval gazing to youtube, to video games, to movie theaters.
It's not that recording technology and radio obliterated small scale stuff.
It's that there's so much else to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475</id>
	<title>Copyrights are going to be forgotten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255440120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As technology improves, we are eventually going to forget about copyrights; the laws might remain on the books, and big corporations will be busy suing each other over copyrights, but the average citizen will no longer be affected by them.  We are almost there already; high school and college students download music and movies without a thought to copyrights, and share the files with their friends.  Once they grow up, copyrights will have virtually no meaning for the average person in society.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As technology improves , we are eventually going to forget about copyrights ; the laws might remain on the books , and big corporations will be busy suing each other over copyrights , but the average citizen will no longer be affected by them .
We are almost there already ; high school and college students download music and movies without a thought to copyrights , and share the files with their friends .
Once they grow up , copyrights will have virtually no meaning for the average person in society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As technology improves, we are eventually going to forget about copyrights; the laws might remain on the books, and big corporations will be busy suing each other over copyrights, but the average citizen will no longer be affected by them.
We are almost there already; high school and college students download music and movies without a thought to copyrights, and share the files with their friends.
Once they grow up, copyrights will have virtually no meaning for the average person in society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733913</id>
	<title>Re:Money for nothing and your chicks for free</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1255458120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but I dare you to make an argument for going to a doctor who is in it for the money instead of the one who is in it for the good of humanity.</p></div><p>Why would the former be worse? They want repeat business. They're human. I figure it's more important to get a doctor that you can communicate with and trust. I don't consider the motives to be that relevant (and yes, I don't automatically trust more a doctor who's doing it "for the good of humanity").</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but I dare you to make an argument for going to a doctor who is in it for the money instead of the one who is in it for the good of humanity.Why would the former be worse ?
They want repeat business .
They 're human .
I figure it 's more important to get a doctor that you can communicate with and trust .
I do n't consider the motives to be that relevant ( and yes , I do n't automatically trust more a doctor who 's doing it " for the good of humanity " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I dare you to make an argument for going to a doctor who is in it for the money instead of the one who is in it for the good of humanity.Why would the former be worse?
They want repeat business.
They're human.
I figure it's more important to get a doctor that you can communicate with and trust.
I don't consider the motives to be that relevant (and yes, I don't automatically trust more a doctor who's doing it "for the good of humanity").
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732401</id>
	<title>Go away, you're not 21</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1255451220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where I live there is live music available somewhere in the town every single day of the week.</p></div><p>Even to people living in the United States and under age 21? A lot of live music is played in bars, and a lot of U.S. states ban even accompanied minors from bars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I live there is live music available somewhere in the town every single day of the week.Even to people living in the United States and under age 21 ?
A lot of live music is played in bars , and a lot of U.S. states ban even accompanied minors from bars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I live there is live music available somewhere in the town every single day of the week.Even to people living in the United States and under age 21?
A lot of live music is played in bars, and a lot of U.S. states ban even accompanied minors from bars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775</id>
	<title>Copyright is not about innovation</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1255442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.</p></div></blockquote><p>By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works. Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.</p><p>It also leaves out conglomerates, such as Sony, parent of Sony Music, who happens to be responsible for BluRay technology. He also neglects the DVD, which was developed by a consortium of companies including Sony and TimeWarner. Maybe he has never heard of the Sony Music division, but how could he not have heard of TimeWarner?</p><p>Is the author of that quote lying or just ignorant? If the former, nothing he says can be considered reliable. If the latter, his opinion is worthless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I can not think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.By definition , a " copyright industry " would be an industry that produces copyrighted works .
Such industries would not necessarily be creating " innovation in either the creation or distribution of works " and to suggest so is disingenuous.It also leaves out conglomerates , such as Sony , parent of Sony Music , who happens to be responsible for BluRay technology .
He also neglects the DVD , which was developed by a consortium of companies including Sony and TimeWarner .
Maybe he has never heard of the Sony Music division , but how could he not have heard of TimeWarner ? Is the author of that quote lying or just ignorant ?
If the former , nothing he says can be considered reliable .
If the latter , his opinion is worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works.
Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.It also leaves out conglomerates, such as Sony, parent of Sony Music, who happens to be responsible for BluRay technology.
He also neglects the DVD, which was developed by a consortium of companies including Sony and TimeWarner.
Maybe he has never heard of the Sony Music division, but how could he not have heard of TimeWarner?Is the author of that quote lying or just ignorant?
If the former, nothing he says can be considered reliable.
If the latter, his opinion is worthless.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29737339</id>
	<title>Re:The have fought and lost</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1255429020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you single out Sony in your comments, when there are so many other companies involved in this? Moreover, your semi-illiterate ranting is not going to help your cause. You might want to learn some basic spelling and grammar if you want to be taken seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you single out Sony in your comments , when there are so many other companies involved in this ?
Moreover , your semi-illiterate ranting is not going to help your cause .
You might want to learn some basic spelling and grammar if you want to be taken seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you single out Sony in your comments, when there are so many other companies involved in this?
Moreover, your semi-illiterate ranting is not going to help your cause.
You might want to learn some basic spelling and grammar if you want to be taken seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29795455</id>
	<title>Too Many Variables</title>
	<author>SoVi3t</author>
	<datestamp>1255972740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time I hear the copyright arguments, I always laugh.  People see it in shades of black and white.  Either you are stealing music/movies, or you are buying music/movies.  While I have little or no respect for people who burn dvd's then sell them around the place, I see no problem if my buddy recommends a movie to me, and burns me a copy of it.  What's the difference between that, and lending it to me (aside from the fact that he would likely not want his original copy damaged/lost)?  You can complain about high school and college students not buying movies/music, but I can assure you, most do it simply because they DO NOT have money.  I have downloaded only a small handful of movies and all songs I have downloaded (with a few exceptions) are songs I have either owned the cd for, or still own.  Being in college, I don't have the time to go and and pay 15 dollars for a movie or a cd.  And I can still look back at the 90's when cd's were going for almost 30 bucks at times, when we all knew they cost NOTHING to make.  So we sat back, and let you rake in millions/billions, and now the shoe is on the other foot, and the *AA's are pissed.  But you can't say they're losing as much money as they claim.  I don't spend ANY money on cd's, and I can assure you, even without downloadable movies and music, I still would likely not be spending any money on them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I hear the copyright arguments , I always laugh .
People see it in shades of black and white .
Either you are stealing music/movies , or you are buying music/movies .
While I have little or no respect for people who burn dvd 's then sell them around the place , I see no problem if my buddy recommends a movie to me , and burns me a copy of it .
What 's the difference between that , and lending it to me ( aside from the fact that he would likely not want his original copy damaged/lost ) ?
You can complain about high school and college students not buying movies/music , but I can assure you , most do it simply because they DO NOT have money .
I have downloaded only a small handful of movies and all songs I have downloaded ( with a few exceptions ) are songs I have either owned the cd for , or still own .
Being in college , I do n't have the time to go and and pay 15 dollars for a movie or a cd .
And I can still look back at the 90 's when cd 's were going for almost 30 bucks at times , when we all knew they cost NOTHING to make .
So we sat back , and let you rake in millions/billions , and now the shoe is on the other foot , and the * AA 's are pissed .
But you ca n't say they 're losing as much money as they claim .
I do n't spend ANY money on cd 's , and I can assure you , even without downloadable movies and music , I still would likely not be spending any money on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I hear the copyright arguments, I always laugh.
People see it in shades of black and white.
Either you are stealing music/movies, or you are buying music/movies.
While I have little or no respect for people who burn dvd's then sell them around the place, I see no problem if my buddy recommends a movie to me, and burns me a copy of it.
What's the difference between that, and lending it to me (aside from the fact that he would likely not want his original copy damaged/lost)?
You can complain about high school and college students not buying movies/music, but I can assure you, most do it simply because they DO NOT have money.
I have downloaded only a small handful of movies and all songs I have downloaded (with a few exceptions) are songs I have either owned the cd for, or still own.
Being in college, I don't have the time to go and and pay 15 dollars for a movie or a cd.
And I can still look back at the 90's when cd's were going for almost 30 bucks at times, when we all knew they cost NOTHING to make.
So we sat back, and let you rake in millions/billions, and now the shoe is on the other foot, and the *AA's are pissed.
But you can't say they're losing as much money as they claim.
I don't spend ANY money on cd's, and I can assure you, even without downloadable movies and music, I still would likely not be spending any money on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29735029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29734837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29736117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29740683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29734717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29745883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29734939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29751279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29738865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29737339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29739743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29735723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29743425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29745831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0037246_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29735295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29743425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29734837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29745831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29734939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29735029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29740683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29737339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29736117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29734717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29739743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29751279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29741217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29735295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29745883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0037246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731627
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733405
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29738865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730861
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731467
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731223
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733257
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29735723
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732683
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29733743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29732275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29730579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0037246.29731827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
