<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_21_1941217</id>
	<title>Disney Close To Unveiling New "DVD Killer"</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256153820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Uncle Rummy writes <i>"The Wall Street Journal reports that Disney is close to releasing a new system that will <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703816204574485650026945222.html">sell permanent, multi-device access to digital media</a>.  The system, dubbed Keychest, is being positioned as an answer to consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices, and thus as a way to finally shift media sales from an ownership model to an access model.  They claim that such a service would reduce the risk of losing access to content as a result of a single vendor going out of business, as purchased content would remain available from other vendors.  However, they do not seem to have addressed the question of what happens to customers' access to purchased content if the Keychest service itself is discontinued."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uncle Rummy writes " The Wall Street Journal reports that Disney is close to releasing a new system that will sell permanent , multi-device access to digital media .
The system , dubbed Keychest , is being positioned as an answer to consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices , and thus as a way to finally shift media sales from an ownership model to an access model .
They claim that such a service would reduce the risk of losing access to content as a result of a single vendor going out of business , as purchased content would remain available from other vendors .
However , they do not seem to have addressed the question of what happens to customers ' access to purchased content if the Keychest service itself is discontinued .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uncle Rummy writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that Disney is close to releasing a new system that will sell permanent, multi-device access to digital media.
The system, dubbed Keychest, is being positioned as an answer to consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices, and thus as a way to finally shift media sales from an ownership model to an access model.
They claim that such a service would reduce the risk of losing access to content as a result of a single vendor going out of business, as purchased content would remain available from other vendors.
However, they do not seem to have addressed the question of what happens to customers' access to purchased content if the Keychest service itself is discontinued.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1256116440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See personally, I disagree.  Part of my problem with current online digital media is that they're focusing on "owning" rather than "accessing".  Take iTunes, for example.  I can "buy" a season of a particular show, but I can't just pay to watch it once.  Not only does "buying" theoretically increase the price to watch a show once that I'll probably only want to watch once, but it also puts me on the hook to store and maintain a copy.  Sure, I can throw it away if I really only want to watch it once, but then I've payed "buying" price for a "rental".
</p><p>Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for most TV shows and movies per-viewing, so long as it was cheap and I had the option to buy.  Further, what I'd really like to do is buy free access to downloads in perpetuity, regardless of new/improved formats.  What I mean is, I might actually be convinced to spend $20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted (if the original file was lost or deleted), and that if they release it in 1080p in a couple of years I could download that copy, too.  And then if they released it in whatever replaced 1080p, I could get that free too.  That would be my preference as a consumer, that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again.
</p><p>Still, I would agree that they're really trying to solve their own problem instead of the consumer's problem.  The "consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices" is entirely caused by two things: selling less-than-ideal quality versions so they can sell you better versions later, and locking users in with DRM.  I know everyone knows what I'm talking about with DRM, but movie studios are selling DVD quality movies on iTunes even after the Bluray has been released.  Hell, there are even cases where they'll let you rent the 720p version (meaning it's on Apple's server) but will only let you buy the DVD-quality.  And that's only 720p.  Why should I spend $20 on a 720p version when I know a 1080p version exists and there's no predefined upgrade path.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See personally , I disagree .
Part of my problem with current online digital media is that they 're focusing on " owning " rather than " accessing " .
Take iTunes , for example .
I can " buy " a season of a particular show , but I ca n't just pay to watch it once .
Not only does " buying " theoretically increase the price to watch a show once that I 'll probably only want to watch once , but it also puts me on the hook to store and maintain a copy .
Sure , I can throw it away if I really only want to watch it once , but then I 've payed " buying " price for a " rental " .
Personally , I would n't mind paying for most TV shows and movies per-viewing , so long as it was cheap and I had the option to buy .
Further , what I 'd really like to do is buy free access to downloads in perpetuity , regardless of new/improved formats .
What I mean is , I might actually be convinced to spend $ 20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted ( if the original file was lost or deleted ) , and that if they release it in 1080p in a couple of years I could download that copy , too .
And then if they released it in whatever replaced 1080p , I could get that free too .
That would be my preference as a consumer , that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again .
Still , I would agree that they 're really trying to solve their own problem instead of the consumer 's problem .
The " consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices " is entirely caused by two things : selling less-than-ideal quality versions so they can sell you better versions later , and locking users in with DRM .
I know everyone knows what I 'm talking about with DRM , but movie studios are selling DVD quality movies on iTunes even after the Bluray has been released .
Hell , there are even cases where they 'll let you rent the 720p version ( meaning it 's on Apple 's server ) but will only let you buy the DVD-quality .
And that 's only 720p .
Why should I spend $ 20 on a 720p version when I know a 1080p version exists and there 's no predefined upgrade path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See personally, I disagree.
Part of my problem with current online digital media is that they're focusing on "owning" rather than "accessing".
Take iTunes, for example.
I can "buy" a season of a particular show, but I can't just pay to watch it once.
Not only does "buying" theoretically increase the price to watch a show once that I'll probably only want to watch once, but it also puts me on the hook to store and maintain a copy.
Sure, I can throw it away if I really only want to watch it once, but then I've payed "buying" price for a "rental".
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for most TV shows and movies per-viewing, so long as it was cheap and I had the option to buy.
Further, what I'd really like to do is buy free access to downloads in perpetuity, regardless of new/improved formats.
What I mean is, I might actually be convinced to spend $20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted (if the original file was lost or deleted), and that if they release it in 1080p in a couple of years I could download that copy, too.
And then if they released it in whatever replaced 1080p, I could get that free too.
That would be my preference as a consumer, that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again.
Still, I would agree that they're really trying to solve their own problem instead of the consumer's problem.
The "consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices" is entirely caused by two things: selling less-than-ideal quality versions so they can sell you better versions later, and locking users in with DRM.
I know everyone knows what I'm talking about with DRM, but movie studios are selling DVD quality movies on iTunes even after the Bluray has been released.
Hell, there are even cases where they'll let you rent the 720p version (meaning it's on Apple's server) but will only let you buy the DVD-quality.
And that's only 720p.
Why should I spend $20 on a 720p version when I know a 1080p version exists and there's no predefined upgrade path.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828179</id>
	<title>Don't diss subscription services</title>
	<author>fortapocalypse</author>
	<datestamp>1256117160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they come up with may or may not last, but it is the way things are going, so get over it. Pandora is awesome (and you should pay for it if you don't). Netflix streaming- also awesome. Disney wants to get on the subscription bandwagon, so be it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they come up with may or may not last , but it is the way things are going , so get over it .
Pandora is awesome ( and you should pay for it if you do n't ) .
Netflix streaming- also awesome .
Disney wants to get on the subscription bandwagon , so be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they come up with may or may not last, but it is the way things are going, so get over it.
Pandora is awesome (and you should pay for it if you don't).
Netflix streaming- also awesome.
Disney wants to get on the subscription bandwagon, so be it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29835457</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1256227800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even without illegal downloads, Disney can't really control the distribution anymore.</p><p>The used tape and disc market thrives, at every flea market and yard sale in the country. I never bought videos for myself on VHS... just couldn't stand the lack-of-quality. But we had a ton of kid-vids, at least half of that from Disney. These all wound their way into yard sales, after the kids had long lost interest.</p><p>With DVDs, there's a pretty good chance that cycles through several times. Unless the kids pick up the discs themselves when they're at the "chew everything" stage (we lost a few computer games to chewing, but no tapes or DVDs), at least of most of these will survive to the next cycle. Anyone who bought used will certainly sell used, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even without illegal downloads , Disney ca n't really control the distribution anymore.The used tape and disc market thrives , at every flea market and yard sale in the country .
I never bought videos for myself on VHS... just could n't stand the lack-of-quality .
But we had a ton of kid-vids , at least half of that from Disney .
These all wound their way into yard sales , after the kids had long lost interest.With DVDs , there 's a pretty good chance that cycles through several times .
Unless the kids pick up the discs themselves when they 're at the " chew everything " stage ( we lost a few computer games to chewing , but no tapes or DVDs ) , at least of most of these will survive to the next cycle .
Anyone who bought used will certainly sell used , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even without illegal downloads, Disney can't really control the distribution anymore.The used tape and disc market thrives, at every flea market and yard sale in the country.
I never bought videos for myself on VHS... just couldn't stand the lack-of-quality.
But we had a ton of kid-vids, at least half of that from Disney.
These all wound their way into yard sales, after the kids had long lost interest.With DVDs, there's a pretty good chance that cycles through several times.
Unless the kids pick up the discs themselves when they're at the "chew everything" stage (we lost a few computer games to chewing, but no tapes or DVDs), at least of most of these will survive to the next cycle.
Anyone who bought used will certainly sell used, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29833131</id>
	<title>Re:So, "any device" means...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256208180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Which means any device other then something I would want to use to watch a movie while on an airplane.</i></p><p>Sheesh, what sort of cheap skate airline are you flying that does not show films on it?</p><p>Emirates for example has a zillion different films that you can choose, play, pause etc.</p><p>We don't need you putting some device on your tray table and spilling your elbows over into the next seat for the whole flight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which means any device other then something I would want to use to watch a movie while on an airplane.Sheesh , what sort of cheap skate airline are you flying that does not show films on it ? Emirates for example has a zillion different films that you can choose , play , pause etc.We do n't need you putting some device on your tray table and spilling your elbows over into the next seat for the whole flight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which means any device other then something I would want to use to watch a movie while on an airplane.Sheesh, what sort of cheap skate airline are you flying that does not show films on it?Emirates for example has a zillion different films that you can choose, play, pause etc.We don't need you putting some device on your tray table and spilling your elbows over into the next seat for the whole flight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828249</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Daniel\_Staal</author>
	<datestamp>1256117340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never get why people want to rent movies electronically.</p><p>If you were 'renting' the TV season, you'd still have to download it (in the same quality as the 'buy' version) and play it.  So the only real difference, in the electronic-delivery world, between 'buying' and 'renting' is in the latter you need a complicated DRM scheme.  (Even more complicated than a normal DRM scheme.)</p><p>So, it actually costs the company <em>more</em> to rent it to you.  Selling it to you, even if you only play it once and then delete it, costs both the company and you less.  Or at least it should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never get why people want to rent movies electronically.If you were 'renting ' the TV season , you 'd still have to download it ( in the same quality as the 'buy ' version ) and play it .
So the only real difference , in the electronic-delivery world , between 'buying ' and 'renting ' is in the latter you need a complicated DRM scheme .
( Even more complicated than a normal DRM scheme .
) So , it actually costs the company more to rent it to you .
Selling it to you , even if you only play it once and then delete it , costs both the company and you less .
Or at least it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never get why people want to rent movies electronically.If you were 'renting' the TV season, you'd still have to download it (in the same quality as the 'buy' version) and play it.
So the only real difference, in the electronic-delivery world, between 'buying' and 'renting' is in the latter you need a complicated DRM scheme.
(Even more complicated than a normal DRM scheme.
)So, it actually costs the company more to rent it to you.
Selling it to you, even if you only play it once and then delete it, costs both the company and you less.
Or at least it should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828563</id>
	<title>Re:"Redefining ownership as access rights..."</title>
	<author>AdmiralWeirdbeard</author>
	<datestamp>1256118720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah, the whole 'access model' can just fuck right off.
i have a netflix subscription for things i only want access to.  Some movies are, i have decided, awesome enough to have on hand at all times.  Those I will OWN. If the possible of ownership is denied me, i will infringe.  If they seriously think making it more of a hassle/expensive to acquire their content will encourage people to do so legally, they are too deluded to be in the movie business.  Go be a patent troll or something, then you wouldn't even have to bother creating content...</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , the whole 'access model ' can just fuck right off .
i have a netflix subscription for things i only want access to .
Some movies are , i have decided , awesome enough to have on hand at all times .
Those I will OWN .
If the possible of ownership is denied me , i will infringe .
If they seriously think making it more of a hassle/expensive to acquire their content will encourage people to do so legally , they are too deluded to be in the movie business .
Go be a patent troll or something , then you would n't even have to bother creating content.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, the whole 'access model' can just fuck right off.
i have a netflix subscription for things i only want access to.
Some movies are, i have decided, awesome enough to have on hand at all times.
Those I will OWN.
If the possible of ownership is denied me, i will infringe.
If they seriously think making it more of a hassle/expensive to acquire their content will encourage people to do so legally, they are too deluded to be in the movie business.
Go be a patent troll or something, then you wouldn't even have to bother creating content...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828161</id>
	<title>Why do they think I'd want this?</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1256117100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, this consumer is not interested in buying into a system that relies on the continued external support of the access controls. I'm sure their glib answer is "Disney is huge, and won't go out of business" - but Walmart is even bigger, and they still made the decision to terminate support for their DRMed music store.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this consumer is not interested in buying into a system that relies on the continued external support of the access controls .
I 'm sure their glib answer is " Disney is huge , and wo n't go out of business " - but Walmart is even bigger , and they still made the decision to terminate support for their DRMed music store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this consumer is not interested in buying into a system that relies on the continued external support of the access controls.
I'm sure their glib answer is "Disney is huge, and won't go out of business" - but Walmart is even bigger, and they still made the decision to terminate support for their DRMed music store.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829861</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>avandesande</author>
	<datestamp>1256125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stick it to the man- I take the kids to the dollar movies and it is six dollars for the three of us. We always get to see new movies and it costs less than a dvd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stick it to the man- I take the kids to the dollar movies and it is six dollars for the three of us .
We always get to see new movies and it costs less than a dvd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stick it to the man- I take the kids to the dollar movies and it is six dollars for the three of us.
We always get to see new movies and it costs less than a dvd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828105</id>
	<title>Re:Despite our retorts, this will succeed</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1256116860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Minnie Mouse antenna topper on the minivan, but I won't be buying any DRM from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Minnie Mouse antenna topper on the minivan , but I wo n't be buying any DRM from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Minnie Mouse antenna topper on the minivan, but I won't be buying any DRM from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828483</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256118360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disney failing would be huge and unlikely.  Disney doesn't have to go out of business for this to fail.  This could happen easily.  After the hype and marketing dies down, and as the consumers are less excited about it, watch sales dry up.  Disney is a corporation, not a charity.  This won't last if it's not profitable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney failing would be huge and unlikely .
Disney does n't have to go out of business for this to fail .
This could happen easily .
After the hype and marketing dies down , and as the consumers are less excited about it , watch sales dry up .
Disney is a corporation , not a charity .
This wo n't last if it 's not profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney failing would be huge and unlikely.
Disney doesn't have to go out of business for this to fail.
This could happen easily.
After the hype and marketing dies down, and as the consumers are less excited about it, watch sales dry up.
Disney is a corporation, not a charity.
This won't last if it's not profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29834371</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>FreeXenon</author>
	<datestamp>1256221320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly what I want.

We should pay for permanent access to content and be able to watch it in whatever format we want as they become available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what I want .
We should pay for permanent access to content and be able to watch it in whatever format we want as they become available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what I want.
We should pay for permanent access to content and be able to watch it in whatever format we want as they become available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29832387</id>
	<title>Disney's Lampoon is a flop</title>
	<author>WeeBit</author>
	<datestamp>1256153820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The rollout of the new technology comes at a critical juncture for the movie industry. DVD sales, once a financial mainstay for Hollywood, have fallen as much as 25\% at some studios."<br><br>It's there fault.  What do you expect when Disney doesn't make  DVD's the same as everyone else!<br><br>
&nbsp; If I can't burn it to DVD, then they might as well hang their bright idea up.  It wont go far.  I am not going to depend on a few services, not to have problems, just when i want to sit down, and watch a movie or two.  What happens when you change providers?  Computer crash?  So much is dependent on a few services to deliver.  I would lots rather go to the local DVD store, and purchase the DVD, and store it in my  collection of DVDs.  Disney doesn't even make compliant DVDs, I have to play their DVDs in a cheap older DVD player because it wont play in the Sony which is a very expensive system.  Sheesh.<br><br>Plus I picture in the near future people crying foul because of Keychest.  They don't use a iphone, or have that certain cable service, or dish.  Or they don't get their Internet with AT&amp;T or verizon.<br>Quite possibly they don't want their computer tied up for hours, just so the kiddies can watch a few Disney flicks.  And the cell phone is off limits.  I can see the bill now.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/weebit cringes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The rollout of the new technology comes at a critical juncture for the movie industry .
DVD sales , once a financial mainstay for Hollywood , have fallen as much as 25 \ % at some studios .
" It 's there fault .
What do you expect when Disney does n't make DVD 's the same as everyone else !
  If I ca n't burn it to DVD , then they might as well hang their bright idea up .
It wont go far .
I am not going to depend on a few services , not to have problems , just when i want to sit down , and watch a movie or two .
What happens when you change providers ?
Computer crash ?
So much is dependent on a few services to deliver .
I would lots rather go to the local DVD store , and purchase the DVD , and store it in my collection of DVDs .
Disney does n't even make compliant DVDs , I have to play their DVDs in a cheap older DVD player because it wont play in the Sony which is a very expensive system .
Sheesh.Plus I picture in the near future people crying foul because of Keychest .
They do n't use a iphone , or have that certain cable service , or dish .
Or they do n't get their Internet with AT&amp;T or verizon.Quite possibly they do n't want their computer tied up for hours , just so the kiddies can watch a few Disney flicks .
And the cell phone is off limits .
I can see the bill now .
/weebit cringes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The rollout of the new technology comes at a critical juncture for the movie industry.
DVD sales, once a financial mainstay for Hollywood, have fallen as much as 25\% at some studios.
"It's there fault.
What do you expect when Disney doesn't make  DVD's the same as everyone else!
  If I can't burn it to DVD, then they might as well hang their bright idea up.
It wont go far.
I am not going to depend on a few services, not to have problems, just when i want to sit down, and watch a movie or two.
What happens when you change providers?
Computer crash?
So much is dependent on a few services to deliver.
I would lots rather go to the local DVD store, and purchase the DVD, and store it in my  collection of DVDs.
Disney doesn't even make compliant DVDs, I have to play their DVDs in a cheap older DVD player because it wont play in the Sony which is a very expensive system.
Sheesh.Plus I picture in the near future people crying foul because of Keychest.
They don't use a iphone, or have that certain cable service, or dish.
Or they don't get their Internet with AT&amp;T or verizon.Quite possibly they don't want their computer tied up for hours, just so the kiddies can watch a few Disney flicks.
And the cell phone is off limits.
I can see the bill now.
/weebit cringes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829101</id>
	<title>Already broken</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256121360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called "Telecine". Use a cinema-quality digital camcorder, and genlock it to the TV's refresh signal. The warez scene <em>can</em> afford this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called " Telecine " .
Use a cinema-quality digital camcorder , and genlock it to the TV 's refresh signal .
The warez scene can afford this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called "Telecine".
Use a cinema-quality digital camcorder, and genlock it to the TV's refresh signal.
The warez scene can afford this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831493</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256141220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Disney haven't been too unethical over they years</p> </div><p>

What are you talking about? Disney has been a proponent of eternal copyright (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Term\_Extension\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Term\_Extension\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org]) which I'd say is unethical at the least, an attack on the public and plain evil at the worst. </p><p><div class="quote"><p> Since the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright  would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.</p> </div><p>

Because apparently 75 years is too few for Disney. Why do they need to increase copyright to 120 years, far beyond the average lifespan of a human, heck the oldest verified person died at age 122, so I don't think Disney is concerned about having someones work fall into the "horror" of the public domain where it can be used freely and expanded upon and is an actual asset to culture at a whole. <br> <br>

Disney is not an ethical company, this is particularly disturbing because even if you don't like Disney movies chances are you watch Touchstone or read/watch Marvel books/movies both companies Disney owns.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney have n't been too unethical over they years What are you talking about ?
Disney has been a proponent of eternal copyright ( see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright \ _Term \ _Extension \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ] ) which I 'd say is unethical at the least , an attack on the public and plain evil at the worst .
Since the Copyright Act of 1976 , copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years , or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship .
The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication , whichever endpoint is earlier .
Because apparently 75 years is too few for Disney .
Why do they need to increase copyright to 120 years , far beyond the average lifespan of a human , heck the oldest verified person died at age 122 , so I do n't think Disney is concerned about having someones work fall into the " horror " of the public domain where it can be used freely and expanded upon and is an actual asset to culture at a whole .
Disney is not an ethical company , this is particularly disturbing because even if you do n't like Disney movies chances are you watch Touchstone or read/watch Marvel books/movies both companies Disney owns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Disney haven't been too unethical over they years 

What are you talking about?
Disney has been a proponent of eternal copyright (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Term\_Extension\_Act [wikipedia.org]) which I'd say is unethical at the least, an attack on the public and plain evil at the worst.
Since the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright  would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship.
The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.
Because apparently 75 years is too few for Disney.
Why do they need to increase copyright to 120 years, far beyond the average lifespan of a human, heck the oldest verified person died at age 122, so I don't think Disney is concerned about having someones work fall into the "horror" of the public domain where it can be used freely and expanded upon and is an actual asset to culture at a whole.
Disney is not an ethical company, this is particularly disturbing because even if you don't like Disney movies chances are you watch Touchstone or read/watch Marvel books/movies both companies Disney owns.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831169</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>RoyPardee</author>
	<datestamp>1256137140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bolt was pretty good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bolt was pretty good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bolt was pretty good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829391</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1256122860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for most TV shows and movies per-viewing, so long as it was cheap and I had the option to buy.  Further, what I'd really like to do is buy free access to downloads in perpetuity, regardless of new/improved formats.  What I mean is, I might actually be convinced to spend $20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted (if the original file was lost or deleted), and that if they release it in 1080p in a couple of years I could download that copy, too.  And then if they released it in whatever replaced 1080p, I could get that free too.  That would be my preference as a consumer, that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again.
</p></div><p>Well you can... It's called Netflix.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I would n't mind paying for most TV shows and movies per-viewing , so long as it was cheap and I had the option to buy .
Further , what I 'd really like to do is buy free access to downloads in perpetuity , regardless of new/improved formats .
What I mean is , I might actually be convinced to spend $ 20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted ( if the original file was lost or deleted ) , and that if they release it in 1080p in a couple of years I could download that copy , too .
And then if they released it in whatever replaced 1080p , I could get that free too .
That would be my preference as a consumer , that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again .
Well you can... It 's called Netflix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for most TV shows and movies per-viewing, so long as it was cheap and I had the option to buy.
Further, what I'd really like to do is buy free access to downloads in perpetuity, regardless of new/improved formats.
What I mean is, I might actually be convinced to spend $20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted (if the original file was lost or deleted), and that if they release it in 1080p in a couple of years I could download that copy, too.
And then if they released it in whatever replaced 1080p, I could get that free too.
That would be my preference as a consumer, that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again.
Well you can... It's called Netflix.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828511</id>
	<title>Re:Keychest vs. the Vault</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1256118540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny thing that vault! They use copyright specifically to make their work less available in direct contravention to the purpose of copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing that vault !
They use copyright specifically to make their work less available in direct contravention to the purpose of copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing that vault!
They use copyright specifically to make their work less available in direct contravention to the purpose of copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828033</id>
	<title>There's a typo...</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1256116620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The system, dubbed Keychest, is being positioned as an answer to consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices...</p></div></blockquote><p>The system, dubbed Keychest, is being positioned <strong>to lock our customers into a DRM system, so that we can squeeze every penny out of them</strong>...</p><p>There, fixed that for you Disney.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The system , dubbed Keychest , is being positioned as an answer to consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices...The system , dubbed Keychest , is being positioned to lock our customers into a DRM system , so that we can squeeze every penny out of them...There , fixed that for you Disney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system, dubbed Keychest, is being positioned as an answer to consumer concerns about purchasing digital media that are locked to a small number of devices...The system, dubbed Keychest, is being positioned to lock our customers into a DRM system, so that we can squeeze every penny out of them...There, fixed that for you Disney.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29833303</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>the\_one(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1256210820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An easier way is:<br>1) download the DVD in your format of choice<br>2) purchase the DVD (optional)<br>3) transfer it to the device<br>4) enjoy<br>5) Backup original so you don't lose or destroy it. (if 2))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An easier way is : 1 ) download the DVD in your format of choice2 ) purchase the DVD ( optional ) 3 ) transfer it to the device4 ) enjoy5 ) Backup original so you do n't lose or destroy it .
( if 2 ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An easier way is:1) download the DVD in your format of choice2) purchase the DVD (optional)3) transfer it to the device4) enjoy5) Backup original so you don't lose or destroy it.
(if 2))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29832925</id>
	<title>We already have that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256205540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have a multi-format permanent access to media.</p><p>It's called "no encryption".</p><p>It relies on people buying your stuff, which is a problem for many in the entertainment industry, though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have a multi-format permanent access to media.It 's called " no encryption " .It relies on people buying your stuff , which is a problem for many in the entertainment industry , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have a multi-format permanent access to media.It's called "no encryption".It relies on people buying your stuff, which is a problem for many in the entertainment industry, though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827907</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nonsense! Just look what a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX\_(Digital\_Video\_Express)" title="wikipedia.org">roaring success</a> [wikipedia.org] Circuit City had with this "They don't really want to own it" model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense !
Just look what a roaring success [ wikipedia.org ] Circuit City had with this " They do n't really want to own it " model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense!
Just look what a roaring success [wikipedia.org] Circuit City had with this "They don't really want to own it" model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827897</id>
	<title>Printing Press</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1256116080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that media companies see DRM as a printing press on which they can print their own cash.</p><p>And seem sore when they find out no one but them seems to value their funny money.</p><p>If they really want us to see value in it, they need to back it up with a gold standard... put copies of the movie in some DRM-free format in escrow.</p><p>Your technology goes away; we get DRM-free version of the movies we purchased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that media companies see DRM as a printing press on which they can print their own cash.And seem sore when they find out no one but them seems to value their funny money.If they really want us to see value in it , they need to back it up with a gold standard... put copies of the movie in some DRM-free format in escrow.Your technology goes away ; we get DRM-free version of the movies we purchased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that media companies see DRM as a printing press on which they can print their own cash.And seem sore when they find out no one but them seems to value their funny money.If they really want us to see value in it, they need to back it up with a gold standard... put copies of the movie in some DRM-free format in escrow.Your technology goes away; we get DRM-free version of the movies we purchased.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830901</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>WiseWeasel</author>
	<datestamp>1256133960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software is not the same as movie and music content. The consumer expects the music and movies they buy to be playable on a wide variety of devices for the foreseeable future, and to be able to lend it to a friend or family member. Someone buying software expects it to work on a particular computer OS version or console platform, often tied to a serial number or service account that can only be used by a single person at any given time, and they expect that it will cease to function within a few years. It's dangerous to compare distribution schemes for these two widely divergent content markets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software is not the same as movie and music content .
The consumer expects the music and movies they buy to be playable on a wide variety of devices for the foreseeable future , and to be able to lend it to a friend or family member .
Someone buying software expects it to work on a particular computer OS version or console platform , often tied to a serial number or service account that can only be used by a single person at any given time , and they expect that it will cease to function within a few years .
It 's dangerous to compare distribution schemes for these two widely divergent content markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software is not the same as movie and music content.
The consumer expects the music and movies they buy to be playable on a wide variety of devices for the foreseeable future, and to be able to lend it to a friend or family member.
Someone buying software expects it to work on a particular computer OS version or console platform, often tied to a serial number or service account that can only be used by a single person at any given time, and they expect that it will cease to function within a few years.
It's dangerous to compare distribution schemes for these two widely divergent content markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829169</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256121720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would much rather watch a new film than one I've seen before.</p> </div><p>Ah, but I assume you are not a child aged 2-11. Disney's movies get played over and over in households with small children. Over and over. Disney would make a fortune selling per-view subscriptions to families. Over and over. Did I mention that kids watch the same movies over and over?</p><p>-b</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would much rather watch a new film than one I 've seen before .
Ah , but I assume you are not a child aged 2-11 .
Disney 's movies get played over and over in households with small children .
Over and over .
Disney would make a fortune selling per-view subscriptions to families .
Over and over .
Did I mention that kids watch the same movies over and over ? -b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would much rather watch a new film than one I've seen before.
Ah, but I assume you are not a child aged 2-11.
Disney's movies get played over and over in households with small children.
Over and over.
Disney would make a fortune selling per-view subscriptions to families.
Over and over.
Did I mention that kids watch the same movies over and over?-b
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827811</id>
	<title>"Redefining ownership as access rights..."</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256115660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the Holy Grail of the "content" industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Holy Grail of the " content " industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the Holy Grail of the "content" industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831117</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256136420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Get access to media<br>2) Defeat the security<br>3) Create a copy</p><p>The specifics vary, but plain audio &amp; video will always be copyable. Other types of entertainment are almost exponentially harder. The less access there is to the media and the more interactive it is, the harder it is to copy. Here's an example list that goes from easy to difficult: dvd backups, recording streamed video, computer game backups, console game backups, acquiring an mmorpg server.</p><p>So, if Disney wanted extreme security, they'd just need to create a console MMORPG that streams their movies.<br>(side effects may include 30-something virgins pwn'ing the little mermaid)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Get access to media2 ) Defeat the security3 ) Create a copyThe specifics vary , but plain audio &amp; video will always be copyable .
Other types of entertainment are almost exponentially harder .
The less access there is to the media and the more interactive it is , the harder it is to copy .
Here 's an example list that goes from easy to difficult : dvd backups , recording streamed video , computer game backups , console game backups , acquiring an mmorpg server.So , if Disney wanted extreme security , they 'd just need to create a console MMORPG that streams their movies .
( side effects may include 30-something virgins pwn'ing the little mermaid )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Get access to media2) Defeat the security3) Create a copyThe specifics vary, but plain audio &amp; video will always be copyable.
Other types of entertainment are almost exponentially harder.
The less access there is to the media and the more interactive it is, the harder it is to copy.
Here's an example list that goes from easy to difficult: dvd backups, recording streamed video, computer game backups, console game backups, acquiring an mmorpg server.So, if Disney wanted extreme security, they'd just need to create a console MMORPG that streams their movies.
(side effects may include 30-something virgins pwn'ing the little mermaid)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29832161</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1256150340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Circuit City owned a bank. First North American National Bank was owned by Circuit City. There was no way they could go out of business. Then the perfect storm hit. The housing/mortgage industry dragged down the banking industry. Banking dragged down consumer spending. Their two sources of revenue were decimated. All of a sudden a company that was never going to go out of business went out of business. If DiVX hadn't been the abject failure that it was, can you imagine how many people would have been screwed out of the content that they paid have access to (in other words bought)?</p><p>It's highly unlikely that Disney will go out of business, but it's not impossible. What's far more likely is that in 10 years the consumers will have moved on to something else and it'll be a net loser for Disney to keep their key chest scheme running and they'll kill it leaving millions of consumers with nothing to show for it.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Circuit City owned a bank .
First North American National Bank was owned by Circuit City .
There was no way they could go out of business .
Then the perfect storm hit .
The housing/mortgage industry dragged down the banking industry .
Banking dragged down consumer spending .
Their two sources of revenue were decimated .
All of a sudden a company that was never going to go out of business went out of business .
If DiVX had n't been the abject failure that it was , can you imagine how many people would have been screwed out of the content that they paid have access to ( in other words bought ) ? It 's highly unlikely that Disney will go out of business , but it 's not impossible .
What 's far more likely is that in 10 years the consumers will have moved on to something else and it 'll be a net loser for Disney to keep their key chest scheme running and they 'll kill it leaving millions of consumers with nothing to show for it.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Circuit City owned a bank.
First North American National Bank was owned by Circuit City.
There was no way they could go out of business.
Then the perfect storm hit.
The housing/mortgage industry dragged down the banking industry.
Banking dragged down consumer spending.
Their two sources of revenue were decimated.
All of a sudden a company that was never going to go out of business went out of business.
If DiVX hadn't been the abject failure that it was, can you imagine how many people would have been screwed out of the content that they paid have access to (in other words bought)?It's highly unlikely that Disney will go out of business, but it's not impossible.
What's far more likely is that in 10 years the consumers will have moved on to something else and it'll be a net loser for Disney to keep their key chest scheme running and they'll kill it leaving millions of consumers with nothing to show for it.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829207</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1256122020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I never get why people want to rent movies electronically.</p></div><p>It's not complicated.  I want to watch a movie, but I only want to watch it once.  I don't particularly want to "buy" the movie because I don't even want it to take up space on my hard drive.
</p><p>Therefore, if the person who owns the copyright is willing to let me pay 1/4 of the price I would normally spend to "buy" it and I get exactly what I want out of the deal, why shouldn't I want that?
</p><p>We can go round and round on the DRM thing all day, but my chief objection to DRM is that when I "buy" DRM-encumbered media, I haven't really bought it.  I've rented it, and I can't count on having access to that media over the long-term.  Now if  those terms are clear to everyone and everyone is happy with the arrangement, I don't particularly have a problem with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never get why people want to rent movies electronically.It 's not complicated .
I want to watch a movie , but I only want to watch it once .
I do n't particularly want to " buy " the movie because I do n't even want it to take up space on my hard drive .
Therefore , if the person who owns the copyright is willing to let me pay 1/4 of the price I would normally spend to " buy " it and I get exactly what I want out of the deal , why should n't I want that ?
We can go round and round on the DRM thing all day , but my chief objection to DRM is that when I " buy " DRM-encumbered media , I have n't really bought it .
I 've rented it , and I ca n't count on having access to that media over the long-term .
Now if those terms are clear to everyone and everyone is happy with the arrangement , I do n't particularly have a problem with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never get why people want to rent movies electronically.It's not complicated.
I want to watch a movie, but I only want to watch it once.
I don't particularly want to "buy" the movie because I don't even want it to take up space on my hard drive.
Therefore, if the person who owns the copyright is willing to let me pay 1/4 of the price I would normally spend to "buy" it and I get exactly what I want out of the deal, why shouldn't I want that?
We can go round and round on the DRM thing all day, but my chief objection to DRM is that when I "buy" DRM-encumbered media, I haven't really bought it.
I've rented it, and I can't count on having access to that media over the long-term.
Now if  those terms are clear to everyone and everyone is happy with the arrangement, I don't particularly have a problem with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829959</id>
	<title>Hey, I have an idea!</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1256126460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Instead of going to such lengths to protect 80-year-old films, why don't they put that effort into producing some decent new titles?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of going to such lengths to protect 80-year-old films , why do n't they put that effort into producing some decent new titles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Instead of going to such lengths to protect 80-year-old films, why don't they put that effort into producing some decent new titles?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256115780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't particularly like owning films.  I own quite a lot, but I haven't bought many in the last few years (and those only from charity shops when the DVDs were really cheap).  They take up a lot of space, and I don't watch them very often.  I rent a lot more.  There are few films I want to watch more than once, or maybe twice, and, given the choice, I would much rather watch a new film than one I've seen before.  </p><p>
And that is Disney's real problem.  The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new films.  They need to stop fixating on trying to sell copies of their films and focus on how to persuade people to pay them to make new films.  That is the kind of innovation the industry needs, not new forms of DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't particularly like owning films .
I own quite a lot , but I have n't bought many in the last few years ( and those only from charity shops when the DVDs were really cheap ) .
They take up a lot of space , and I do n't watch them very often .
I rent a lot more .
There are few films I want to watch more than once , or maybe twice , and , given the choice , I would much rather watch a new film than one I 've seen before .
And that is Disney 's real problem .
The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new films .
They need to stop fixating on trying to sell copies of their films and focus on how to persuade people to pay them to make new films .
That is the kind of innovation the industry needs , not new forms of DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't particularly like owning films.
I own quite a lot, but I haven't bought many in the last few years (and those only from charity shops when the DVDs were really cheap).
They take up a lot of space, and I don't watch them very often.
I rent a lot more.
There are few films I want to watch more than once, or maybe twice, and, given the choice, I would much rather watch a new film than one I've seen before.
And that is Disney's real problem.
The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new films.
They need to stop fixating on trying to sell copies of their films and focus on how to persuade people to pay them to make new films.
That is the kind of innovation the industry needs, not new forms of DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29837297</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>durdur</author>
	<datestamp>1256235600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Their saving grace in that department is Pixar.</p></div><p>Their other and even more saving grace is Miyazaki, whose films they now distribute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their saving grace in that department is Pixar.Their other and even more saving grace is Miyazaki , whose films they now distribute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their saving grace in that department is Pixar.Their other and even more saving grace is Miyazaki, whose films they now distribute.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829373</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256122800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie</p></div><p>The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe?</p><p>Or does that not count either because it was a good, like the Pixar movies?</p><p>When was the last time [insert any movie producing company here] produced a good movie ([insert all their good movies here] don't count)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you saw a good Disney movieThe Lion , the Witch , and the Wardrobe ? Or does that not count either because it was a good , like the Pixar movies ? When was the last time [ insert any movie producing company here ] produced a good movie ( [ insert all their good movies here ] do n't count ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When was the last time you saw a good Disney movieThe Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe?Or does that not count either because it was a good, like the Pixar movies?When was the last time [insert any movie producing company here] produced a good movie ([insert all their good movies here] don't count)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828475</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256118360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet every disney DVD ad on tv states.... "OWN IT TODAY"</p><p>If they hate the ownership idea, then why do they push it with their false advertising?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet every disney DVD ad on tv states.... " OWN IT TODAY " If they hate the ownership idea , then why do they push it with their false advertising ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet every disney DVD ad on tv states.... "OWN IT TODAY"If they hate the ownership idea, then why do they push it with their false advertising?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827949</id>
	<title>Dead DRM remote-authorization services.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1256116260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If you bought into any of these, you're a sucker.  They don't work any more.
</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-227194.html" title="cnet.com">Divx (1998-2001).</a> [cnet.com] "Disposable" DVDs tied to a remote authorization system.  Promoted by Circuit City and Thompson.  Content now unplayable.</li>
<li> <a href="http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20864/53/" title="itwire.com">WalMart Music (2007-2008)</a> [itwire.com] Downloadable music tied to an authorization server.  Content now unplayable.</li>
<li> <a href="http://www.wired.com/beyond\_the\_beyond/2008/04/dead-media-be-3/" title="wired.com">PlaysForSure (2004-2008)</a> [wired.com] Microsoft system. Downloadable music tied to an authorization server. Content from AOL MusicNow (closed), Musicmatch Jukebox (closed), Yahoo! Music Unlimited (closed), Spiralfrog (closed), MTV URGE (closed), MSN Music (closed), Musicmatch Jukebox (closed), Ruckus Network (closed) now generally unplayable, although exit strategies exist.  Authorization servers were to be shut down August 31, 2008, but were kept up after that date.</li>
</ul><p>
Next, Disney.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you bought into any of these , you 're a sucker .
They do n't work any more .
Divx ( 1998-2001 ) .
[ cnet.com ] " Disposable " DVDs tied to a remote authorization system .
Promoted by Circuit City and Thompson .
Content now unplayable .
WalMart Music ( 2007-2008 ) [ itwire.com ] Downloadable music tied to an authorization server .
Content now unplayable .
PlaysForSure ( 2004-2008 ) [ wired.com ] Microsoft system .
Downloadable music tied to an authorization server .
Content from AOL MusicNow ( closed ) , Musicmatch Jukebox ( closed ) , Yahoo !
Music Unlimited ( closed ) , Spiralfrog ( closed ) , MTV URGE ( closed ) , MSN Music ( closed ) , Musicmatch Jukebox ( closed ) , Ruckus Network ( closed ) now generally unplayable , although exit strategies exist .
Authorization servers were to be shut down August 31 , 2008 , but were kept up after that date .
Next , Disney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If you bought into any of these, you're a sucker.
They don't work any more.
Divx (1998-2001).
[cnet.com] "Disposable" DVDs tied to a remote authorization system.
Promoted by Circuit City and Thompson.
Content now unplayable.
WalMart Music (2007-2008) [itwire.com] Downloadable music tied to an authorization server.
Content now unplayable.
PlaysForSure (2004-2008) [wired.com] Microsoft system.
Downloadable music tied to an authorization server.
Content from AOL MusicNow (closed), Musicmatch Jukebox (closed), Yahoo!
Music Unlimited (closed), Spiralfrog (closed), MTV URGE (closed), MSN Music (closed), Musicmatch Jukebox (closed), Ruckus Network (closed) now generally unplayable, although exit strategies exist.
Authorization servers were to be shut down August 31, 2008, but were kept up after that date.
Next, Disney.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830163</id>
	<title>Re:And what happens when the copyright ends?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah but copyright is like 1000 years anymore. Unless I become the face of Boe, I won't be getting any of disneys newer stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah but copyright is like 1000 years anymore .
Unless I become the face of Boe , I wo n't be getting any of disneys newer stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah but copyright is like 1000 years anymore.
Unless I become the face of Boe, I won't be getting any of disneys newer stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827639</id>
	<title>I want some...</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1256158140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... of whatever Disney is smoking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... of whatever Disney is smoking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... of whatever Disney is smoking!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547</id>
	<title>Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1256157720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, does the solution here have to be complicated?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , does the solution here have to be complicated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, does the solution here have to be complicated?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827969</id>
	<title>Despite our retorts, this will succeed</title>
	<author>t0qer</author>
	<datestamp>1256116320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1267107&amp;cid=28312911" title="slashdot.org">A few comments ago I talked about an aunt and uncle that worship Disney.</a> [slashdot.org]  They are not alone in the Disney cult, the Disney cult has millions of members worldwide.  Despite anything we say about "DRM IS BAD KTNX" the Disney cultists will follow their leaders into DRM hell, just to show the world that faith is believing.</p><p>All those folks that drive around with Mickey/Minnie vinyls on the back of their windows, all those people that go to Disney 5 times a year, all those people that own every Disney movie ever made will buy into this.  They won't care about being locked in, all they're going to care about is that it's Disney.</p><p>I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few comments ago I talked about an aunt and uncle that worship Disney .
[ slashdot.org ] They are not alone in the Disney cult , the Disney cult has millions of members worldwide .
Despite anything we say about " DRM IS BAD KTNX " the Disney cultists will follow their leaders into DRM hell , just to show the world that faith is believing.All those folks that drive around with Mickey/Minnie vinyls on the back of their windows , all those people that go to Disney 5 times a year , all those people that own every Disney movie ever made will buy into this .
They wo n't care about being locked in , all they 're going to care about is that it 's Disney.I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few comments ago I talked about an aunt and uncle that worship Disney.
[slashdot.org]  They are not alone in the Disney cult, the Disney cult has millions of members worldwide.
Despite anything we say about "DRM IS BAD KTNX" the Disney cultists will follow their leaders into DRM hell, just to show the world that faith is believing.All those folks that drive around with Mickey/Minnie vinyls on the back of their windows, all those people that go to Disney 5 times a year, all those people that own every Disney movie ever made will buy into this.
They won't care about being locked in, all they're going to care about is that it's Disney.I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828071</id>
	<title>The article even says so</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1256116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes - it even says so in the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>And Keychest would allow movie studios to dictate how many devices, connected to which distribution networks, a given title can be played on.</p></div><p>So it is permanent for as long as they say it is permanent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes - it even says so in the article : And Keychest would allow movie studios to dictate how many devices , connected to which distribution networks , a given title can be played on.So it is permanent for as long as they say it is permanent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes - it even says so in the article:And Keychest would allow movie studios to dictate how many devices, connected to which distribution networks, a given title can be played on.So it is permanent for as long as they say it is permanent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828599</id>
	<title>I have the answer.</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1256118840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"However, they do not seem to have addressed the question of what happens to customers' access to purchased content if the Keychest service itself is discontinued."</p><p>Oh that's easy. The consumer can just purchase it again through any number of convenient venues.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" However , they do not seem to have addressed the question of what happens to customers ' access to purchased content if the Keychest service itself is discontinued .
" Oh that 's easy .
The consumer can just purchase it again through any number of convenient venues .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"However, they do not seem to have addressed the question of what happens to customers' access to purchased content if the Keychest service itself is discontinued.
"Oh that's easy.
The consumer can just purchase it again through any number of convenient venues.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831231</id>
	<title>Re:Dead DRM remote-authorization services.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256137920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe Disney had a hand in Divx as well. No surprise here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Disney had a hand in Divx as well .
No surprise here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Disney had a hand in Divx as well.
No surprise here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829781</id>
	<title>DVD killer?  Really?</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1256125320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Oh c'mon, it's not about online movies.  This is yet another try at switching users from purchase to long-term rental, in the face of clear evidence that consumers do not want this.  Disney clearly hasn't learned anything from DIVX and the 48 hour self-destructing DVD.  They seem to think that all they need to do is find the right technology and the right marketing technique, and they can continue to depends on rebuys for a significant part of their revenue stream, despite that business model being dead since the VHS days.
</p><p>
When I purchase a movie, I don't want the content to be out in "the cloud", depending on services that will inevitably go TU some day, or depend on "phoning home" for permission to play the media I have purchased.  I want a physical, non-encumbered archival copy, else it's just a high priced rental, competing unsuccessfully against dirt-cheap rentals like Netflix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh c'mon , it 's not about online movies .
This is yet another try at switching users from purchase to long-term rental , in the face of clear evidence that consumers do not want this .
Disney clearly has n't learned anything from DIVX and the 48 hour self-destructing DVD .
They seem to think that all they need to do is find the right technology and the right marketing technique , and they can continue to depends on rebuys for a significant part of their revenue stream , despite that business model being dead since the VHS days .
When I purchase a movie , I do n't want the content to be out in " the cloud " , depending on services that will inevitably go TU some day , or depend on " phoning home " for permission to play the media I have purchased .
I want a physical , non-encumbered archival copy , else it 's just a high priced rental , competing unsuccessfully against dirt-cheap rentals like Netflix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Oh c'mon, it's not about online movies.
This is yet another try at switching users from purchase to long-term rental, in the face of clear evidence that consumers do not want this.
Disney clearly hasn't learned anything from DIVX and the 48 hour self-destructing DVD.
They seem to think that all they need to do is find the right technology and the right marketing technique, and they can continue to depends on rebuys for a significant part of their revenue stream, despite that business model being dead since the VHS days.
When I purchase a movie, I don't want the content to be out in "the cloud", depending on services that will inevitably go TU some day, or depend on "phoning home" for permission to play the media I have purchased.
I want a physical, non-encumbered archival copy, else it's just a high priced rental, competing unsuccessfully against dirt-cheap rentals like Netflix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830871</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else find it disturbing that...</title>
	<author>mouseblue</author>
	<datestamp>1256133780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...a company that was renowned for giving us stuff to watch is now going to start telling us how we can watch it?</p></div><p>In all fairness, their new Blu Ray releases include the DVD disc also.  And some "digital copy" (whatever that is, Ipod format maybe?).  I guess the goal is to allow a 5-year-old to open the package and play the movie no matter what digital player they own/choose.

<br>
<br>

Want Blu Ray &amp; amazing 1080p clarity?  Check.

<br>
<br>

Only have a DVD player?  You're covered.

<br>
<br>

Want to see a low-res version on your Ipod?  No problem, here's the best encode we've made for it.

<br>
<br>

Ideally, it would simplify things for kids and grandparents.  Not everyone understands the differences or how to convert digital formats.

<br>
<br>

But I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here.  The new blu ray+dvd combo packs are around $20-$25 and is cheaper than the original $40 dvd releases they had 10 years ago.  Not to mention early dvds (not just Disney) sometimes had poor transfers, compression artifacts, rainbows/hue problems/shimmers, etc.

<br>
<br>

We live in an interesting time where having a VHS player, a DVD player, &amp; a Blu Ray player isn't too far-fetched.
<br>
Anime/rare movie fans might own laser disc players also. &gt;\_&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a company that was renowned for giving us stuff to watch is now going to start telling us how we can watch it ? In all fairness , their new Blu Ray releases include the DVD disc also .
And some " digital copy " ( whatever that is , Ipod format maybe ? ) .
I guess the goal is to allow a 5-year-old to open the package and play the movie no matter what digital player they own/choose .
Want Blu Ray &amp; amazing 1080p clarity ?
Check . Only have a DVD player ?
You 're covered .
Want to see a low-res version on your Ipod ?
No problem , here 's the best encode we 've made for it .
Ideally , it would simplify things for kids and grandparents .
Not everyone understands the differences or how to convert digital formats .
But I 'm just trying to play devil 's advocate here .
The new blu ray + dvd combo packs are around $ 20- $ 25 and is cheaper than the original $ 40 dvd releases they had 10 years ago .
Not to mention early dvds ( not just Disney ) sometimes had poor transfers , compression artifacts , rainbows/hue problems/shimmers , etc .
We live in an interesting time where having a VHS player , a DVD player , &amp; a Blu Ray player is n't too far-fetched .
Anime/rare movie fans might own laser disc players also .
&gt; \ _ &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a company that was renowned for giving us stuff to watch is now going to start telling us how we can watch it?In all fairness, their new Blu Ray releases include the DVD disc also.
And some "digital copy" (whatever that is, Ipod format maybe?).
I guess the goal is to allow a 5-year-old to open the package and play the movie no matter what digital player they own/choose.
Want Blu Ray &amp; amazing 1080p clarity?
Check.




Only have a DVD player?
You're covered.
Want to see a low-res version on your Ipod?
No problem, here's the best encode we've made for it.
Ideally, it would simplify things for kids and grandparents.
Not everyone understands the differences or how to convert digital formats.
But I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here.
The new blu ray+dvd combo packs are around $20-$25 and is cheaper than the original $40 dvd releases they had 10 years ago.
Not to mention early dvds (not just Disney) sometimes had poor transfers, compression artifacts, rainbows/hue problems/shimmers, etc.
We live in an interesting time where having a VHS player, a DVD player, &amp; a Blu Ray player isn't too far-fetched.
Anime/rare movie fans might own laser disc players also.
&gt;\_&gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827889</id>
	<title>is this why steve jobs is.......</title>
	<author>bootchka</author>
	<datestamp>1256116020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>holding out on blu-ray in macs??</htmltext>
<tokenext>holding out on blu-ray in macs ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>holding out on blu-ray in macs?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828689</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1256119440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't have kids, do you? Disney has a TON of value in their old films. Kids will watch the same movie hundreds of times, until they can quote and follow every single line. And then they'll watch it again. Hell, my wife still has Aladdin pretty much memorized. They want these laws because they realize that they can rake in the cash and not have to do any work other than bitching to Congress about the evil citizens wanting copyright to not be forfuckingever and a day, and copying things like they're part of the culture instead of Disney's sole property.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have kids , do you ?
Disney has a TON of value in their old films .
Kids will watch the same movie hundreds of times , until they can quote and follow every single line .
And then they 'll watch it again .
Hell , my wife still has Aladdin pretty much memorized .
They want these laws because they realize that they can rake in the cash and not have to do any work other than bitching to Congress about the evil citizens wanting copyright to not be forfuckingever and a day , and copying things like they 're part of the culture instead of Disney 's sole property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have kids, do you?
Disney has a TON of value in their old films.
Kids will watch the same movie hundreds of times, until they can quote and follow every single line.
And then they'll watch it again.
Hell, my wife still has Aladdin pretty much memorized.
They want these laws because they realize that they can rake in the cash and not have to do any work other than bitching to Congress about the evil citizens wanting copyright to not be forfuckingever and a day, and copying things like they're part of the culture instead of Disney's sole property.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829791</id>
	<title>No thanks Disney!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256125440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another silly attempt by disney to control all of the media all the time.  They tried this with the "DiVX" DVD format and failed miserably.   Disney, guess what, I already have a fool proof method of keeping all of the media that I BUY, FOREVER, its called DVD, and if I want something to be digital I can by an MP4 or other digital media file. Keychest will fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another silly attempt by disney to control all of the media all the time .
They tried this with the " DiVX " DVD format and failed miserably .
Disney , guess what , I already have a fool proof method of keeping all of the media that I BUY , FOREVER , its called DVD , and if I want something to be digital I can by an MP4 or other digital media file .
Keychest will fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another silly attempt by disney to control all of the media all the time.
They tried this with the "DiVX" DVD format and failed miserably.
Disney, guess what, I already have a fool proof method of keeping all of the media that I BUY, FOREVER, its called DVD, and if I want something to be digital I can by an MP4 or other digital media file.
Keychest will fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828181</id>
	<title>It's Halloween!</title>
	<author>Kid Zero</author>
	<datestamp>1256117160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So naturally the ghost of Divx rises from the graveyard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So naturally the ghost of Divx rises from the graveyard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So naturally the ghost of Divx rises from the graveyard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29841567</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256215140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disney DVDs are specially crafted to not be easily ripped.  Both Wall-E and Hannah Montanna appeared to be 60GB to DVD Decrypter.  The commercial rippers often have to release patches just to address one disc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney DVDs are specially crafted to not be easily ripped .
Both Wall-E and Hannah Montanna appeared to be 60GB to DVD Decrypter .
The commercial rippers often have to release patches just to address one disc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney DVDs are specially crafted to not be easily ripped.
Both Wall-E and Hannah Montanna appeared to be 60GB to DVD Decrypter.
The commercial rippers often have to release patches just to address one disc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828365</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1256117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People LIKE owning</p></div></blockquote><p>
The movie studios understand this too.  There's a damn good reason their ads stress "<strong>Own</strong> it now, on DVD and Blu-ray."  It's what people want to hear before they put down money. If an ad said, "license it now on keychest," their sales, er I mean licensing revenue, would plummet.  For all their suicidal tendencies, even Hollywood isn't trying to lose quite <em>that</em> fast.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People LIKE owning The movie studios understand this too .
There 's a damn good reason their ads stress " Own it now , on DVD and Blu-ray .
" It 's what people want to hear before they put down money .
If an ad said , " license it now on keychest , " their sales , er I mean licensing revenue , would plummet .
For all their suicidal tendencies , even Hollywood is n't trying to lose quite that fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People LIKE owning
The movie studios understand this too.
There's a damn good reason their ads stress "Own it now, on DVD and Blu-ray.
"  It's what people want to hear before they put down money.
If an ad said, "license it now on keychest," their sales, er I mean licensing revenue, would plummet.
For all their suicidal tendencies, even Hollywood isn't trying to lose quite that fast.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829821</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1256125620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; Thus Disney is in the problematic position of having
a durable physical medium that may cause an eventual
saturation of their target market.
</p><p>
Indeed.  Test by:  Go to any of the larger Salvation Army outlets, and check their DVD section.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Thus Disney is in the problematic position of having a durable physical medium that may cause an eventual saturation of their target market .
Indeed. Test by : Go to any of the larger Salvation Army outlets , and check their DVD section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; Thus Disney is in the problematic position of having
a durable physical medium that may cause an eventual
saturation of their target market.
Indeed.  Test by:  Go to any of the larger Salvation Army outlets, and check their DVD section.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827653</id>
	<title>Keychest vs. the Vault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This coming from a company that puts movies in the vault for a decade to increase demand. How do they reconcile the two philosophies? Maybe it's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but the cynical side of me thinks they are counting on new file formats (.avi-&gt;.dis) being introduced in the future that will not be compatible with Keychest. In any case, Disney thinking in the best interest of the customer does not seem to be what is happening here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This coming from a company that puts movies in the vault for a decade to increase demand .
How do they reconcile the two philosophies ?
Maybe it 's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing , but the cynical side of me thinks they are counting on new file formats ( .avi- &gt; .dis ) being introduced in the future that will not be compatible with Keychest .
In any case , Disney thinking in the best interest of the customer does not seem to be what is happening here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This coming from a company that puts movies in the vault for a decade to increase demand.
How do they reconcile the two philosophies?
Maybe it's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but the cynical side of me thinks they are counting on new file formats (.avi-&gt;.dis) being introduced in the future that will not be compatible with Keychest.
In any case, Disney thinking in the best interest of the customer does not seem to be what is happening here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1256117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of "screw the customer" system coming from<br>Disney is really no big surprise. We have reached the<br>point where many consumers may not see the point in<br>buy future formats as what they already have (DVD)<br>seems "good enough" for their intended purpose. Some<br>4 year old that wants to watch the same movie over<br>and over again probably won't notice the subtleties<br>between 480i and 1080p.</p><p>Thus Disney is in the problematic position of having<br>a durable physical medium that may cause an eventual<br>saturation of their target market.</p><p>Who knows. Perhaps the next generation will inherit<br>all of our Disney DVDs and there will be no reason<br>for him to buy his own copy. THIS is probably what<br>scares the bejezzus out of Disney.</p><p>That's not even getting into "rips".</p><p>Also, Disney seems to be the most active studio when it<br>comes to screwing around with the current DVD format to<br>try and layer "error based" copy protection over it.</p><p>Disney are the ABSOLUTE LAST people you want to trust with<br>a consumer video format that doesn't offer some sort of<br>physical ownership token or first sale rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of " screw the customer " system coming fromDisney is really no big surprise .
We have reached thepoint where many consumers may not see the point inbuy future formats as what they already have ( DVD ) seems " good enough " for their intended purpose .
Some4 year old that wants to watch the same movie overand over again probably wo n't notice the subtletiesbetween 480i and 1080p.Thus Disney is in the problematic position of havinga durable physical medium that may cause an eventualsaturation of their target market.Who knows .
Perhaps the next generation will inheritall of our Disney DVDs and there will be no reasonfor him to buy his own copy .
THIS is probably whatscares the bejezzus out of Disney.That 's not even getting into " rips " .Also , Disney seems to be the most active studio when itcomes to screwing around with the current DVD format totry and layer " error based " copy protection over it.Disney are the ABSOLUTE LAST people you want to trust witha consumer video format that does n't offer some sort ofphysical ownership token or first sale rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of "screw the customer" system coming fromDisney is really no big surprise.
We have reached thepoint where many consumers may not see the point inbuy future formats as what they already have (DVD)seems "good enough" for their intended purpose.
Some4 year old that wants to watch the same movie overand over again probably won't notice the subtletiesbetween 480i and 1080p.Thus Disney is in the problematic position of havinga durable physical medium that may cause an eventualsaturation of their target market.Who knows.
Perhaps the next generation will inheritall of our Disney DVDs and there will be no reasonfor him to buy his own copy.
THIS is probably whatscares the bejezzus out of Disney.That's not even getting into "rips".Also, Disney seems to be the most active studio when itcomes to screwing around with the current DVD format totry and layer "error based" copy protection over it.Disney are the ABSOLUTE LAST people you want to trust witha consumer video format that doesn't offer some sort ofphysical ownership token or first sale rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830077</id>
	<title>Why should I trust your servers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Please trust our servers."</p><p>Give me one good reason why I should.</p><p>I've seen even the most trusted brands screw their customers with digital distribution.</p><p>After Sony-RootKit, Amazon-Kindle-1984, etc., it's clear that NO brand can be trusted.</p><p>No, I will not trust your servers.  Your fellow industry players have ruined it for all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Please trust our servers .
" Give me one good reason why I should.I 've seen even the most trusted brands screw their customers with digital distribution.After Sony-RootKit , Amazon-Kindle-1984 , etc. , it 's clear that NO brand can be trusted.No , I will not trust your servers .
Your fellow industry players have ruined it for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Please trust our servers.
"Give me one good reason why I should.I've seen even the most trusted brands screw their customers with digital distribution.After Sony-RootKit, Amazon-Kindle-1984, etc., it's clear that NO brand can be trusted.No, I will not trust your servers.
Your fellow industry players have ruined it for all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828067</id>
	<title>The DVD killer is already here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called Hard Disk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called Hard Disk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called Hard Disk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828053</id>
	<title>Re:And what happens when the copyright ends?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here - the copyright on Disney works will NEVER be allowed to expire. Every time Steamboat Willie almost slips into the public domain, they extend the time limit again. Therefore, Keychest doesn't need to worry about the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here - the copyright on Disney works will NEVER be allowed to expire .
Every time Steamboat Willie almost slips into the public domain , they extend the time limit again .
Therefore , Keychest does n't need to worry about the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here - the copyright on Disney works will NEVER be allowed to expire.
Every time Steamboat Willie almost slips into the public domain, they extend the time limit again.
Therefore, Keychest doesn't need to worry about the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829165</id>
	<title>Free The DVD</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1256121660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the simplest solution to this self identified dvd portability "problem" is to stop preventing consumers from ripping their purchased films to hard drives. once that occurs they can stream movies either in house or globally via the net, to all or any device they prefer. take my run of the mill my $65 1TB hard drive. it holds nearly 250 single-layer films as uncompressed isos. that's over 300\% more movies than the average american household owns now. next year that 65 bucks will buy me two gigs and storage for almost 500 films, or nearly 3000 with the proper compression. i live in conn but sometimes watch my movies in mass either by net or by drive. it's simple and free of technical issues. in other words it works.</p><p>this disney maneuver can't be as much about solving practical problems consumers have with player compatibility (legal ripping software will take care of that) as it is about solving perceptual issues consumers have towards content cartels and their draconian efforts at digitally restricting media.</p><p>free the dvd/blu-ray. they may sell more too. or not, but the problem vanishes.</p><p> - js.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the simplest solution to this self identified dvd portability " problem " is to stop preventing consumers from ripping their purchased films to hard drives .
once that occurs they can stream movies either in house or globally via the net , to all or any device they prefer .
take my run of the mill my $ 65 1TB hard drive .
it holds nearly 250 single-layer films as uncompressed isos .
that 's over 300 \ % more movies than the average american household owns now .
next year that 65 bucks will buy me two gigs and storage for almost 500 films , or nearly 3000 with the proper compression .
i live in conn but sometimes watch my movies in mass either by net or by drive .
it 's simple and free of technical issues .
in other words it works.this disney maneuver ca n't be as much about solving practical problems consumers have with player compatibility ( legal ripping software will take care of that ) as it is about solving perceptual issues consumers have towards content cartels and their draconian efforts at digitally restricting media.free the dvd/blu-ray .
they may sell more too .
or not , but the problem vanishes .
- js .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the simplest solution to this self identified dvd portability "problem" is to stop preventing consumers from ripping their purchased films to hard drives.
once that occurs they can stream movies either in house or globally via the net, to all or any device they prefer.
take my run of the mill my $65 1TB hard drive.
it holds nearly 250 single-layer films as uncompressed isos.
that's over 300\% more movies than the average american household owns now.
next year that 65 bucks will buy me two gigs and storage for almost 500 films, or nearly 3000 with the proper compression.
i live in conn but sometimes watch my movies in mass either by net or by drive.
it's simple and free of technical issues.
in other words it works.this disney maneuver can't be as much about solving practical problems consumers have with player compatibility (legal ripping software will take care of that) as it is about solving perceptual issues consumers have towards content cartels and their draconian efforts at digitally restricting media.free the dvd/blu-ray.
they may sell more too.
or not, but the problem vanishes.
- js.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830563</id>
	<title>Disney more evil than Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256131080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en\_GB&amp;word1=Sony+is+evil&amp;word2=Microsoft+is+evil" title="googlefight.com" rel="nofollow">Google proves it</a> [googlefight.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google proves it [ googlefight.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google proves it [googlefight.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828939</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1256120640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> "Then all is lost. You will be too busy fighting for daily survival - trying to outwit gangs of bandits, scrounging or stealing whatever scraps of food you can find, amputating your own gangrenous limb using nothing but rusty garden tools - to think about movies or entertainment of any kind."</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, but what do I do when I get OUT of Disneyworld?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Then all is lost .
You will be too busy fighting for daily survival - trying to outwit gangs of bandits , scrounging or stealing whatever scraps of food you can find , amputating your own gangrenous limb using nothing but rusty garden tools - to think about movies or entertainment of any kind .
" Yeah , but what do I do when I get OUT of Disneyworld ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Then all is lost.
You will be too busy fighting for daily survival - trying to outwit gangs of bandits, scrounging or stealing whatever scraps of food you can find, amputating your own gangrenous limb using nothing but rusty garden tools - to think about movies or entertainment of any kind.
"Yeah, but what do I do when I get OUT of Disneyworld?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601</id>
	<title>Out of Business?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256157960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or what if Disney itself goes out of business?</p><p>If I buy it as a DVD as it is now, I don't have to worry about vendors, like Best Buy, to go out of business.</p><p>Why try "fix" something that isn't broken? What they need to fix is their prices. Maybe if it was cheaper and worth buying, people wouldn't copy so much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or what if Disney itself goes out of business ? If I buy it as a DVD as it is now , I do n't have to worry about vendors , like Best Buy , to go out of business.Why try " fix " something that is n't broken ?
What they need to fix is their prices .
Maybe if it was cheaper and worth buying , people would n't copy so much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or what if Disney itself goes out of business?If I buy it as a DVD as it is now, I don't have to worry about vendors, like Best Buy, to go out of business.Why try "fix" something that isn't broken?
What they need to fix is their prices.
Maybe if it was cheaper and worth buying, people wouldn't copy so much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29834309</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256220840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's called netflix or blockbuster. pay the monthly fee and either watch it online or rent the physical media. choose, watch, return, repeat. i mean really your so-called problem has been solved for god knows how many years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's called netflix or blockbuster .
pay the monthly fee and either watch it online or rent the physical media .
choose , watch , return , repeat .
i mean really your so-called problem has been solved for god knows how many years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's called netflix or blockbuster.
pay the monthly fee and either watch it online or rent the physical media.
choose, watch, return, repeat.
i mean really your so-called problem has been solved for god knows how many years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829003</id>
	<title>Re:Dead DRM remote-authorization services.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256120880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were the guy in charge of planning a remote-authorization service, I would establish a trust to fund the maintenance of the servers indefinitely. You can estimate the yearly cost of maintaining the servers, determine the amount of money that needs to be invested to pay that cost indefinitely (believe it or not this is a finite amount of money), and require that all of the partners in the venture pay their share of that cost. Each year you measure the difference between the trust's assets and the estimated amount of money needed to fund it and require the partners to pay in their share of the difference (which should be small if it's fully funded from the beginning).</p><p>This shouldn't be a difficult problem. The cost of providing a guarantee can be estimated and funded in advance. The fact that no one has done this so far shouldn't be taken as a sign that this is impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were the guy in charge of planning a remote-authorization service , I would establish a trust to fund the maintenance of the servers indefinitely .
You can estimate the yearly cost of maintaining the servers , determine the amount of money that needs to be invested to pay that cost indefinitely ( believe it or not this is a finite amount of money ) , and require that all of the partners in the venture pay their share of that cost .
Each year you measure the difference between the trust 's assets and the estimated amount of money needed to fund it and require the partners to pay in their share of the difference ( which should be small if it 's fully funded from the beginning ) .This should n't be a difficult problem .
The cost of providing a guarantee can be estimated and funded in advance .
The fact that no one has done this so far should n't be taken as a sign that this is impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were the guy in charge of planning a remote-authorization service, I would establish a trust to fund the maintenance of the servers indefinitely.
You can estimate the yearly cost of maintaining the servers, determine the amount of money that needs to be invested to pay that cost indefinitely (believe it or not this is a finite amount of money), and require that all of the partners in the venture pay their share of that cost.
Each year you measure the difference between the trust's assets and the estimated amount of money needed to fund it and require the partners to pay in their share of the difference (which should be small if it's fully funded from the beginning).This shouldn't be a difficult problem.
The cost of providing a guarantee can be estimated and funded in advance.
The fact that no one has done this so far shouldn't be taken as a sign that this is impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828337</id>
	<title>Re:And what happens when the copyright ends?</title>
	<author>Daniel\_Staal</author>
	<datestamp>1256117640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Disney.  They've already solved the 'copyright ends eventually' problem.  They bought Congress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Disney .
They 've already solved the 'copyright ends eventually ' problem .
They bought Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Disney.
They've already solved the 'copyright ends eventually' problem.
They bought Congress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828107</id>
	<title>Re:And what happens when the copyright ends?</title>
	<author>Thud457</author>
	<datestamp>1256116860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"And what happens when the copyright ends?"</i>
<p>
Are you even at all familiar with the Disney company?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And what happens when the copyright ends ?
" Are you even at all familiar with the Disney company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And what happens when the copyright ends?
"

Are you even at all familiar with the Disney company?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828403</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>rho</author>
	<datestamp>1256118000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This.

</p><p>Disney Corp. is now much more about managing a stable of properties. Which is not a sin, professional management is valuable. But by itself it'll only take you so far. Buying Pixar helps with this problem, but you can't keep making Toy Story movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This .
Disney Corp. is now much more about managing a stable of properties .
Which is not a sin , professional management is valuable .
But by itself it 'll only take you so far .
Buying Pixar helps with this problem , but you ca n't keep making Toy Story movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.
Disney Corp. is now much more about managing a stable of properties.
Which is not a sin, professional management is valuable.
But by itself it'll only take you so far.
Buying Pixar helps with this problem, but you can't keep making Toy Story movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828485</id>
	<title>When you build a Nuclear Plant</title>
	<author>ArbitraryDescriptor</author>
	<datestamp>1256118360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to put up money to cover maintenance for the life of the plant and cleanup.<br> <br>If you host a DRM scheme, I submit that you should be required to hold in escrow funds to keep that system running until the content secured by the system falls into public domain.  I would further suggest that Disney should suck it, and finally reap what they have sown.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to put up money to cover maintenance for the life of the plant and cleanup .
If you host a DRM scheme , I submit that you should be required to hold in escrow funds to keep that system running until the content secured by the system falls into public domain .
I would further suggest that Disney should suck it , and finally reap what they have sown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to put up money to cover maintenance for the life of the plant and cleanup.
If you host a DRM scheme, I submit that you should be required to hold in escrow funds to keep that system running until the content secured by the system falls into public domain.
I would further suggest that Disney should suck it, and finally reap what they have sown.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829451</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>dogmatixpsych</author>
	<datestamp>1256123160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bolt was good. Don't forget that Disney also owns Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Miramax Films. They also own ABC (and so Disney is "responsible" for Lost and other good shows). The Narnia films were great. The first Pirates movie was good. Disney is making a lot of good movies (they also put out a lot of not good movies).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bolt was good .
Do n't forget that Disney also owns Touchstone Pictures , Hollywood Pictures , and Miramax Films .
They also own ABC ( and so Disney is " responsible " for Lost and other good shows ) .
The Narnia films were great .
The first Pirates movie was good .
Disney is making a lot of good movies ( they also put out a lot of not good movies ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bolt was good.
Don't forget that Disney also owns Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Miramax Films.
They also own ABC (and so Disney is "responsible" for Lost and other good shows).
The Narnia films were great.
The first Pirates movie was good.
Disney is making a lot of good movies (they also put out a lot of not good movies).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828471</id>
	<title>Definitions are important.</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256118300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If by DVD you mean "a physical medium upon which DVDs are sold", then no, this isn't a DVD killer.  In fact, this format seems to INCLUDE DVD, but more importantly if given the choice between owning a CSS-encrypted DVD and a Frankensteinian monster like "Keychest", I'll choose DVD any day.  Well, at least until the brilliant people behind DeCSS invent "SkeletonKey" and ensure me access to what I've paid a license for even when Disney loses interest in the model and discontinues it.</p><p>If by DVD you mean "a movie that is sold for home consumption", then, yes, this is a "DVD killer" for sure.  If this is the only format purchase-for-home-use movies are available in, then my collection will stop growing immediately.  Not that it grows a lot today...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If by DVD you mean " a physical medium upon which DVDs are sold " , then no , this is n't a DVD killer .
In fact , this format seems to INCLUDE DVD , but more importantly if given the choice between owning a CSS-encrypted DVD and a Frankensteinian monster like " Keychest " , I 'll choose DVD any day .
Well , at least until the brilliant people behind DeCSS invent " SkeletonKey " and ensure me access to what I 've paid a license for even when Disney loses interest in the model and discontinues it.If by DVD you mean " a movie that is sold for home consumption " , then , yes , this is a " DVD killer " for sure .
If this is the only format purchase-for-home-use movies are available in , then my collection will stop growing immediately .
Not that it grows a lot today.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by DVD you mean "a physical medium upon which DVDs are sold", then no, this isn't a DVD killer.
In fact, this format seems to INCLUDE DVD, but more importantly if given the choice between owning a CSS-encrypted DVD and a Frankensteinian monster like "Keychest", I'll choose DVD any day.
Well, at least until the brilliant people behind DeCSS invent "SkeletonKey" and ensure me access to what I've paid a license for even when Disney loses interest in the model and discontinues it.If by DVD you mean "a movie that is sold for home consumption", then, yes, this is a "DVD killer" for sure.
If this is the only format purchase-for-home-use movies are available in, then my collection will stop growing immediately.
Not that it grows a lot today...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829327</id>
	<title>Media as a service?  HA!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256122500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They claim that such a service..."</p><p>Well, they can stop right there.  Given past experience with DRM, no, I'm not buying something that can be spontaneously and remotely revoked after I've bought it (for valid or false/mistaken reasons), or where the company can disappear.  I'll stick with plain  DVDs where the only risk I will lose the value of the product is if I accidentally break it, or if I want to sell it to someone else.</p><p>If they want to sell it as a service then put it on TV or radio.  At least there I know what I'm buying is temporarily viewable.</p><p>This thing is as likely to take off as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX\_(Digital\_Video\_Express)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">DIVX</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They claim that such a service... " Well , they can stop right there .
Given past experience with DRM , no , I 'm not buying something that can be spontaneously and remotely revoked after I 've bought it ( for valid or false/mistaken reasons ) , or where the company can disappear .
I 'll stick with plain DVDs where the only risk I will lose the value of the product is if I accidentally break it , or if I want to sell it to someone else.If they want to sell it as a service then put it on TV or radio .
At least there I know what I 'm buying is temporarily viewable.This thing is as likely to take off as DIVX [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They claim that such a service..."Well, they can stop right there.
Given past experience with DRM, no, I'm not buying something that can be spontaneously and remotely revoked after I've bought it (for valid or false/mistaken reasons), or where the company can disappear.
I'll stick with plain  DVDs where the only risk I will lose the value of the product is if I accidentally break it, or if I want to sell it to someone else.If they want to sell it as a service then put it on TV or radio.
At least there I know what I'm buying is temporarily viewable.This thing is as likely to take off as DIVX [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829037</id>
	<title>Can we stop this "killer" talk?</title>
	<author>huskerdoo</author>
	<datestamp>1256121060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  I mean, when was the last time something labeled as a "killer" actually was?  It is about as exciting as calling the next singer "The Next Hannah Montana".  I'm tired of companies and media calling things "The iPod Killer, The Facebook Killer".  It makes the product sound like more work was put into PR than actual product development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I mean , when was the last time something labeled as a " killer " actually was ?
It is about as exciting as calling the next singer " The Next Hannah Montana " .
I 'm tired of companies and media calling things " The iPod Killer , The Facebook Killer " .
It makes the product sound like more work was put into PR than actual product development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I mean, when was the last time something labeled as a "killer" actually was?
It is about as exciting as calling the next singer "The Next Hannah Montana".
I'm tired of companies and media calling things "The iPod Killer, The Facebook Killer".
It makes the product sound like more work was put into PR than actual product development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829817</id>
	<title>Bandwidth</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1256125560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget too, with all this push to 'online distribution', is that the big providers are now starting to limit bandwidth usage since we all got used to trying to use what we were sold. Making this even less appealing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget too , with all this push to 'online distribution ' , is that the big providers are now starting to limit bandwidth usage since we all got used to trying to use what we were sold .
Making this even less appealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget too, with all this push to 'online distribution', is that the big providers are now starting to limit bandwidth usage since we all got used to trying to use what we were sold.
Making this even less appealing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830805</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256133120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'd disagree there.</p><p>Disney's problem is that the vault isn't going to work anymore, and their largest asset is still and probably always will be their back catalog of classics. In the old days they kept the value of these things up by taking them off the market, they're still trying this, but it's probably not going to work anymore. I've got a 4 week old, and I would like to share some of the memories of my childhood with him including the classic Disney movies. Most parents feel the same way. While I am by no means rich, I am perfectly happy to pay a reasonable rate to purchase legitimate copies of these movies. It costs me money, but I don't really pirate movies anymore, and buying the old classics is pretty good value for money IMO. On the other hand, if I'm not given the option to pay someone money for a product I want, and I can acquire that product by another means, I don't feel too bad about it.</p><p>Disney are starting to wake up to this fact and to realize they can't completely control distribution, but they also don't really want a glut of back catalog stock sitting in stores all over the world slowly dropping in price and value. By creating a digital distribution scheme, Disney can, in theory, provide access to the movies that people want to buy whenever they want to buy them without drastically reducing their value and sale price through oversupply.</p><p>Personally I'm reserving judgment until I see more details and read some reviews. Pay once use anywhere, if it works, is actually a pretty cool service and one which is worth paying for. It's content as a license but with all the benefits of a license instead of the usual deal which is content as a license, but sold to you like a physical product, all the restrictions, none of the flexibility. That's a major pet peeve of mine, if I'm paying for a license I should be able to exercise that license in anyway I see fit, at any time, and to get a new copy of the product I've licensed whenever I want, if I've bought a physical product I can do whatever I want with it, you can't have it both ways.</p><p> Disney haven't been too unethical over they years, they've extended or modified the DVD spec a few times, and that's certainly caused some issues, but I haven't heard of them suing anyone, or being particularly evil. I'm not a huge fan of the Disney vault, but it's good business sense and within their legal and ethical rights.</p><p>That doesn't mean this will work properly, or that their won't be risks involved(early adopters always take risks, if you bought an HD-DVD you've got movies that won't play on anything when your player dies and that's physical media), but it's not a fundamentally bad idea or fundamentally evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'd disagree there.Disney 's problem is that the vault is n't going to work anymore , and their largest asset is still and probably always will be their back catalog of classics .
In the old days they kept the value of these things up by taking them off the market , they 're still trying this , but it 's probably not going to work anymore .
I 've got a 4 week old , and I would like to share some of the memories of my childhood with him including the classic Disney movies .
Most parents feel the same way .
While I am by no means rich , I am perfectly happy to pay a reasonable rate to purchase legitimate copies of these movies .
It costs me money , but I do n't really pirate movies anymore , and buying the old classics is pretty good value for money IMO .
On the other hand , if I 'm not given the option to pay someone money for a product I want , and I can acquire that product by another means , I do n't feel too bad about it.Disney are starting to wake up to this fact and to realize they ca n't completely control distribution , but they also do n't really want a glut of back catalog stock sitting in stores all over the world slowly dropping in price and value .
By creating a digital distribution scheme , Disney can , in theory , provide access to the movies that people want to buy whenever they want to buy them without drastically reducing their value and sale price through oversupply.Personally I 'm reserving judgment until I see more details and read some reviews .
Pay once use anywhere , if it works , is actually a pretty cool service and one which is worth paying for .
It 's content as a license but with all the benefits of a license instead of the usual deal which is content as a license , but sold to you like a physical product , all the restrictions , none of the flexibility .
That 's a major pet peeve of mine , if I 'm paying for a license I should be able to exercise that license in anyway I see fit , at any time , and to get a new copy of the product I 've licensed whenever I want , if I 've bought a physical product I can do whatever I want with it , you ca n't have it both ways .
Disney have n't been too unethical over they years , they 've extended or modified the DVD spec a few times , and that 's certainly caused some issues , but I have n't heard of them suing anyone , or being particularly evil .
I 'm not a huge fan of the Disney vault , but it 's good business sense and within their legal and ethical rights.That does n't mean this will work properly , or that their wo n't be risks involved ( early adopters always take risks , if you bought an HD-DVD you 've got movies that wo n't play on anything when your player dies and that 's physical media ) , but it 's not a fundamentally bad idea or fundamentally evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'd disagree there.Disney's problem is that the vault isn't going to work anymore, and their largest asset is still and probably always will be their back catalog of classics.
In the old days they kept the value of these things up by taking them off the market, they're still trying this, but it's probably not going to work anymore.
I've got a 4 week old, and I would like to share some of the memories of my childhood with him including the classic Disney movies.
Most parents feel the same way.
While I am by no means rich, I am perfectly happy to pay a reasonable rate to purchase legitimate copies of these movies.
It costs me money, but I don't really pirate movies anymore, and buying the old classics is pretty good value for money IMO.
On the other hand, if I'm not given the option to pay someone money for a product I want, and I can acquire that product by another means, I don't feel too bad about it.Disney are starting to wake up to this fact and to realize they can't completely control distribution, but they also don't really want a glut of back catalog stock sitting in stores all over the world slowly dropping in price and value.
By creating a digital distribution scheme, Disney can, in theory, provide access to the movies that people want to buy whenever they want to buy them without drastically reducing their value and sale price through oversupply.Personally I'm reserving judgment until I see more details and read some reviews.
Pay once use anywhere, if it works, is actually a pretty cool service and one which is worth paying for.
It's content as a license but with all the benefits of a license instead of the usual deal which is content as a license, but sold to you like a physical product, all the restrictions, none of the flexibility.
That's a major pet peeve of mine, if I'm paying for a license I should be able to exercise that license in anyway I see fit, at any time, and to get a new copy of the product I've licensed whenever I want, if I've bought a physical product I can do whatever I want with it, you can't have it both ways.
Disney haven't been too unethical over they years, they've extended or modified the DVD spec a few times, and that's certainly caused some issues, but I haven't heard of them suing anyone, or being particularly evil.
I'm not a huge fan of the Disney vault, but it's good business sense and within their legal and ethical rights.That doesn't mean this will work properly, or that their won't be risks involved(early adopters always take risks, if you bought an HD-DVD you've got movies that won't play on anything when your player dies and that's physical media), but it's not a fundamentally bad idea or fundamentally evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830035</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might as well ask: <i>What happens when Microsoft goes out of business?</i></p><p>Highly unlikely!... but they did shut down their DRM activation servers, then under protest agreed to keep them up for a number of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might as well ask : What happens when Microsoft goes out of business ? Highly unlikely ! .. .
but they did shut down their DRM activation servers , then under protest agreed to keep them up for a number of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might as well ask: What happens when Microsoft goes out of business?Highly unlikely!...
but they did shut down their DRM activation servers, then under protest agreed to keep them up for a number of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828081</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>THANK YOU! That's exactly how I feel. Sell me a physical piece of media and leave me alone!</htmltext>
<tokenext>THANK YOU !
That 's exactly how I feel .
Sell me a physical piece of media and leave me alone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THANK YOU!
That's exactly how I feel.
Sell me a physical piece of media and leave me alone!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828761</id>
	<title>Disney needs to be entirely destroyed</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1256119800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Truthfully, most of the corporations within the "content," industry need to be.</p><p>They wreck and subvert the legal system in order to support their own greed, and they avoid any form of real creativity in the material they produce, as much as possible.  They are staffed by the usual evil, soulless bean counters who don't want anything other than generic, white box assembly line product year after year, purely in order to make consistent profits.</p><p>They only profit from human stupidity, and the fact that those of us who care about how badly they treat everyone else, are the minority.  If the majority didn't insist on being so unrelentlessly brainless and avoidant of personal responsibility, we might be able to generate support for these companies simply being rendered insolvent.</p><p>Unfortunately, however, the mainstream sheep just keep standing there, mindlessly, sleepily chewing their cud, waiting for the slaughter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truthfully , most of the corporations within the " content , " industry need to be.They wreck and subvert the legal system in order to support their own greed , and they avoid any form of real creativity in the material they produce , as much as possible .
They are staffed by the usual evil , soulless bean counters who do n't want anything other than generic , white box assembly line product year after year , purely in order to make consistent profits.They only profit from human stupidity , and the fact that those of us who care about how badly they treat everyone else , are the minority .
If the majority did n't insist on being so unrelentlessly brainless and avoidant of personal responsibility , we might be able to generate support for these companies simply being rendered insolvent.Unfortunately , however , the mainstream sheep just keep standing there , mindlessly , sleepily chewing their cud , waiting for the slaughter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truthfully, most of the corporations within the "content," industry need to be.They wreck and subvert the legal system in order to support their own greed, and they avoid any form of real creativity in the material they produce, as much as possible.
They are staffed by the usual evil, soulless bean counters who don't want anything other than generic, white box assembly line product year after year, purely in order to make consistent profits.They only profit from human stupidity, and the fact that those of us who care about how badly they treat everyone else, are the minority.
If the majority didn't insist on being so unrelentlessly brainless and avoidant of personal responsibility, we might be able to generate support for these companies simply being rendered insolvent.Unfortunately, however, the mainstream sheep just keep standing there, mindlessly, sleepily chewing their cud, waiting for the slaughter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827783</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1256115600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what if Disney itself goes out of business?</p></div><p>Then all is lost. You will be too busy fighting for daily survival - trying to outwit gangs of bandits, scrounging or stealing whatever scraps of food you can find, amputating your own gangrenous limb using nothing but rusty garden tools - to think about movies or entertainment of any kind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what if Disney itself goes out of business ? Then all is lost .
You will be too busy fighting for daily survival - trying to outwit gangs of bandits , scrounging or stealing whatever scraps of food you can find , amputating your own gangrenous limb using nothing but rusty garden tools - to think about movies or entertainment of any kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if Disney itself goes out of business?Then all is lost.
You will be too busy fighting for daily survival - trying to outwit gangs of bandits, scrounging or stealing whatever scraps of food you can find, amputating your own gangrenous limb using nothing but rusty garden tools - to think about movies or entertainment of any kind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827645</id>
	<title>So, "any device" means...</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1256158140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, "any device" means anything running a supported OS with supported software and access to their cloud.<br> <br>Which means any device other then something I would want to use to watch a movie while on an airplane. More or less the same problem I have with current "digital copy included!" DVDs on the market. They don't actually work with anything I want to use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , " any device " means anything running a supported OS with supported software and access to their cloud .
Which means any device other then something I would want to use to watch a movie while on an airplane .
More or less the same problem I have with current " digital copy included !
" DVDs on the market .
They do n't actually work with anything I want to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, "any device" means anything running a supported OS with supported software and access to their cloud.
Which means any device other then something I would want to use to watch a movie while on an airplane.
More or less the same problem I have with current "digital copy included!
" DVDs on the market.
They don't actually work with anything I want to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831357</id>
	<title>Re:here are a few reasons why we should</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1256139360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To further your theory...<p>
I suspect Disney have already seen how difficult it is to introduce a comprehensive DRM scheme when the pre-existing alternative has no (or easily circumvented) DRM. </p><p>
So I suspect they will be looking to introduce DRM-Lite with only moderate restrictions.</p><p>
Once embedded into the marketplace, they will then be able to increase restrictions and gently introduce the "view at our discression" limitations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To further your theory.. . I suspect Disney have already seen how difficult it is to introduce a comprehensive DRM scheme when the pre-existing alternative has no ( or easily circumvented ) DRM .
So I suspect they will be looking to introduce DRM-Lite with only moderate restrictions .
Once embedded into the marketplace , they will then be able to increase restrictions and gently introduce the " view at our discression " limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To further your theory...
I suspect Disney have already seen how difficult it is to introduce a comprehensive DRM scheme when the pre-existing alternative has no (or easily circumvented) DRM.
So I suspect they will be looking to introduce DRM-Lite with only moderate restrictions.
Once embedded into the marketplace, they will then be able to increase restrictions and gently introduce the "view at our discression" limitations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828537</id>
	<title>Perfect for Apple's Tablet/AppleTV/iTunes/iPhone</title>
	<author>mveloso</author>
	<datestamp>1256118600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of scheme already fits with how Apple has trained everyone. iTunes videos are authorized on up to 5 machines, all of which are supposed to be in your immediate control. The Apple TV and your iPhone/iPod don't count as devices, because they're somewhat locked down. Only computers need authorization. Devices are auto-synced, and by default are considered trusted devices.</p><p>Expand this to your tablet mac/media pad, throw in the content delivery people, and suddenly you have a DRM ecosystem that works. Loose DRM that's traceable back to you if you want to work at it, just like real DVDs. Just like it's difficult to watch 5 copies of a DVD at once, you won't be able to watch more than 5 copies on an untrusted device (or something like that).</p><p>It's fairplay for content. Maybe verisign, etc will sign on as key management providers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of scheme already fits with how Apple has trained everyone .
iTunes videos are authorized on up to 5 machines , all of which are supposed to be in your immediate control .
The Apple TV and your iPhone/iPod do n't count as devices , because they 're somewhat locked down .
Only computers need authorization .
Devices are auto-synced , and by default are considered trusted devices.Expand this to your tablet mac/media pad , throw in the content delivery people , and suddenly you have a DRM ecosystem that works .
Loose DRM that 's traceable back to you if you want to work at it , just like real DVDs .
Just like it 's difficult to watch 5 copies of a DVD at once , you wo n't be able to watch more than 5 copies on an untrusted device ( or something like that ) .It 's fairplay for content .
Maybe verisign , etc will sign on as key management providers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of scheme already fits with how Apple has trained everyone.
iTunes videos are authorized on up to 5 machines, all of which are supposed to be in your immediate control.
The Apple TV and your iPhone/iPod don't count as devices, because they're somewhat locked down.
Only computers need authorization.
Devices are auto-synced, and by default are considered trusted devices.Expand this to your tablet mac/media pad, throw in the content delivery people, and suddenly you have a DRM ecosystem that works.
Loose DRM that's traceable back to you if you want to work at it, just like real DVDs.
Just like it's difficult to watch 5 copies of a DVD at once, you won't be able to watch more than 5 copies on an untrusted device (or something like that).It's fairplay for content.
Maybe verisign, etc will sign on as key management providers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827975</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1256116380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too big too fail and the nation needs it's Roadhouse when TBS isn't playing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too big too fail and the nation needs it 's Roadhouse when TBS is n't playing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too big too fail and the nation needs it's Roadhouse when TBS isn't playing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827899</id>
	<title>Wait...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1256116080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Requiring your DVD player to be connected to the 'net anytime you want to watch a movie... how exactly is that is big win for consumers over what we have now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Requiring your DVD player to be connected to the 'net anytime you want to watch a movie... how exactly is that is big win for consumers over what we have now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Requiring your DVD player to be connected to the 'net anytime you want to watch a movie... how exactly is that is big win for consumers over what we have now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829581</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1256124000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree with you on the TV shows thing.  I mean, if I could get a show from iTunes to either "watch once" or "watch for a week" for, say, 1/2 or 1/4 the cost of owning it, I totally would do that.
<br> <br>
But it's not likely to happen, because if the cost of a season of, say Mad Men drops to $10 or $15, then suddenly a cable bill of $60-$80/month just to be able to watch your 3 or 4 favorite shows on the networks' schedules doesn't sound so great.  Actually, with a season going for 3-4 months--13-15 weekly episodes--a full year's worth of 6 shows at the low end of my suggested price range is one month of your average cable user's bill.
<br> <br>
It may be the right way to go, but some very rich people would sooner do [something awful] than let that happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree with you on the TV shows thing .
I mean , if I could get a show from iTunes to either " watch once " or " watch for a week " for , say , 1/2 or 1/4 the cost of owning it , I totally would do that .
But it 's not likely to happen , because if the cost of a season of , say Mad Men drops to $ 10 or $ 15 , then suddenly a cable bill of $ 60- $ 80/month just to be able to watch your 3 or 4 favorite shows on the networks ' schedules does n't sound so great .
Actually , with a season going for 3-4 months--13-15 weekly episodes--a full year 's worth of 6 shows at the low end of my suggested price range is one month of your average cable user 's bill .
It may be the right way to go , but some very rich people would sooner do [ something awful ] than let that happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree with you on the TV shows thing.
I mean, if I could get a show from iTunes to either "watch once" or "watch for a week" for, say, 1/2 or 1/4 the cost of owning it, I totally would do that.
But it's not likely to happen, because if the cost of a season of, say Mad Men drops to $10 or $15, then suddenly a cable bill of $60-$80/month just to be able to watch your 3 or 4 favorite shows on the networks' schedules doesn't sound so great.
Actually, with a season going for 3-4 months--13-15 weekly episodes--a full year's worth of 6 shows at the low end of my suggested price range is one month of your average cable user's bill.
It may be the right way to go, but some very rich people would sooner do [something awful] than let that happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829619</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256124180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie (Pixar doesn't count)?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

You need to add "(Studio Ghiblhi movies don't count, either)", as Disney is the U.S. distributor for those.  That said, the only good, recent Disney film that I can think of is "Bolt".  Before that, it was probably "The Lion King", or "The Nightmare Before Christmas", or "The Little Mermaid".  (I forget the order in which those came out.)</p><blockquote><div><p>When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience won't cringe at in a few years?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

See above.</p><blockquote><div><p>For crying out loud, they're releasing a double-feature of Toy Story 1 and 2 in 3D now!</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

I don't see that as bad.  Both movies have good story lines (they ARE Pixar films).  Since they were originally computer-animated films, there's every reason to expect that there's a lot of 3D information in the computer model files that just plain gets lost from regular live action or flat animation.  (And consider that the 3D version of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" turned out well, despite the fact that the "work products" for that movie were 2D.)

Now if you want to induce a cringe, mention the 3D guinea pig movie<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie ( Pixar does n't count ) ?
You need to add " ( Studio Ghiblhi movies do n't count , either ) " , as Disney is the U.S. distributor for those .
That said , the only good , recent Disney film that I can think of is " Bolt " .
Before that , it was probably " The Lion King " , or " The Nightmare Before Christmas " , or " The Little Mermaid " .
( I forget the order in which those came out .
) When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience wo n't cringe at in a few years ?
See above.For crying out loud , they 're releasing a double-feature of Toy Story 1 and 2 in 3D now !
I do n't see that as bad .
Both movies have good story lines ( they ARE Pixar films ) .
Since they were originally computer-animated films , there 's every reason to expect that there 's a lot of 3D information in the computer model files that just plain gets lost from regular live action or flat animation .
( And consider that the 3D version of " The Nightmare Before Christmas " turned out well , despite the fact that the " work products " for that movie were 2D .
) Now if you want to induce a cringe , mention the 3D guinea pig movie .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie (Pixar doesn't count)?
You need to add "(Studio Ghiblhi movies don't count, either)", as Disney is the U.S. distributor for those.
That said, the only good, recent Disney film that I can think of is "Bolt".
Before that, it was probably "The Lion King", or "The Nightmare Before Christmas", or "The Little Mermaid".
(I forget the order in which those came out.
)When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience won't cringe at in a few years?
See above.For crying out loud, they're releasing a double-feature of Toy Story 1 and 2 in 3D now!
I don't see that as bad.
Both movies have good story lines (they ARE Pixar films).
Since they were originally computer-animated films, there's every reason to expect that there's a lot of 3D information in the computer model files that just plain gets lost from regular live action or flat animation.
(And consider that the 3D version of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" turned out well, despite the fact that the "work products" for that movie were 2D.
)

Now if you want to induce a cringe, mention the 3D guinea pig movie ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828149</id>
	<title>For most Americans...</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1256116980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that aren't yet served by adequate high-bandwidth Internet access this is not going to work. According to the WSJ article:

</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>"when a consumer buys a movie from a participating store, his accounts with other participating services--such as a mobile-phone provider or a video-on-demand cable service--would be updated to show the title as available for viewing. The movies wouldn't be downloaded; rather, they would reside with each particular delivery company, such as the Internet service provider, cable company or phone company."</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Then how does one view the movide? If the movie doesn't need to be downloaded, the only way one can view it is to, um, <i>download</i> it. When you want to "access" your movie it's still being transferred from the remote storage to your viewing device. I don't care if you call it downloading or streaming. It still has to move across something with a hell of a lot of bandwidth. (Silly me for thinking that someone from the WSJ would pick up on that.)  Sure I wouldn't have to store it on a computer or in/on a phone but -- and maybe it's just me -- I suspect that most people don't save movies on hard disks (other than those they've saved on their DVR's hard disk).  When I can get a computer or a phone with a 57" screen, then maybe I'll consider watching movies on something other than my TV.

</p><p>Want to bet how much your cable and/or phone bill will increase once you start "accessing" that movie you supposedly bought?  And those folks who don't even have sufficient bandwidth to stream crappy YouTube videos?  Imagine watching an entire feature-length movie in five second chunks. Boy, that's entertainment.

</p><p>I have to agree with those posters who mentioned that this is a solution in search of a problem. A Rube Goldberg answer from entertainment industry engineers in response to a question posed by the company legal department.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that are n't yet served by adequate high-bandwidth Internet access this is not going to work .
According to the WSJ article : " when a consumer buys a movie from a participating store , his accounts with other participating services--such as a mobile-phone provider or a video-on-demand cable service--would be updated to show the title as available for viewing .
The movies would n't be downloaded ; rather , they would reside with each particular delivery company , such as the Internet service provider , cable company or phone company .
" Then how does one view the movide ?
If the movie does n't need to be downloaded , the only way one can view it is to , um , download it .
When you want to " access " your movie it 's still being transferred from the remote storage to your viewing device .
I do n't care if you call it downloading or streaming .
It still has to move across something with a hell of a lot of bandwidth .
( Silly me for thinking that someone from the WSJ would pick up on that .
) Sure I would n't have to store it on a computer or in/on a phone but -- and maybe it 's just me -- I suspect that most people do n't save movies on hard disks ( other than those they 've saved on their DVR 's hard disk ) .
When I can get a computer or a phone with a 57 " screen , then maybe I 'll consider watching movies on something other than my TV .
Want to bet how much your cable and/or phone bill will increase once you start " accessing " that movie you supposedly bought ?
And those folks who do n't even have sufficient bandwidth to stream crappy YouTube videos ?
Imagine watching an entire feature-length movie in five second chunks .
Boy , that 's entertainment .
I have to agree with those posters who mentioned that this is a solution in search of a problem .
A Rube Goldberg answer from entertainment industry engineers in response to a question posed by the company legal department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that aren't yet served by adequate high-bandwidth Internet access this is not going to work.
According to the WSJ article:

 "when a consumer buys a movie from a participating store, his accounts with other participating services--such as a mobile-phone provider or a video-on-demand cable service--would be updated to show the title as available for viewing.
The movies wouldn't be downloaded; rather, they would reside with each particular delivery company, such as the Internet service provider, cable company or phone company.
" Then how does one view the movide?
If the movie doesn't need to be downloaded, the only way one can view it is to, um, download it.
When you want to "access" your movie it's still being transferred from the remote storage to your viewing device.
I don't care if you call it downloading or streaming.
It still has to move across something with a hell of a lot of bandwidth.
(Silly me for thinking that someone from the WSJ would pick up on that.
)  Sure I wouldn't have to store it on a computer or in/on a phone but -- and maybe it's just me -- I suspect that most people don't save movies on hard disks (other than those they've saved on their DVR's hard disk).
When I can get a computer or a phone with a 57" screen, then maybe I'll consider watching movies on something other than my TV.
Want to bet how much your cable and/or phone bill will increase once you start "accessing" that movie you supposedly bought?
And those folks who don't even have sufficient bandwidth to stream crappy YouTube videos?
Imagine watching an entire feature-length movie in five second chunks.
Boy, that's entertainment.
I have to agree with those posters who mentioned that this is a solution in search of a problem.
A Rube Goldberg answer from entertainment industry engineers in response to a question posed by the company legal department.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829743</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1256125020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie (Pixar doesn't count)?</p></div><p>I'm guessing what you actually mean is what was the last good Disney traditional animation film, in which case you'd have to go back to the first half of the decade, before Eisner dissolved their cel-animation studios.<br>Now that they've restarted their efforts things seem promising, and the upcoming animations "the princess and the frog" and "rapunzel" are highly anticipated, with names like Ron Clements, John Musker or Alan Menken who were crucial to some of their successes in the 90s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie ( Pixar does n't count ) ? I 'm guessing what you actually mean is what was the last good Disney traditional animation film , in which case you 'd have to go back to the first half of the decade , before Eisner dissolved their cel-animation studios.Now that they 've restarted their efforts things seem promising , and the upcoming animations " the princess and the frog " and " rapunzel " are highly anticipated , with names like Ron Clements , John Musker or Alan Menken who were crucial to some of their successes in the 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie (Pixar doesn't count)?I'm guessing what you actually mean is what was the last good Disney traditional animation film, in which case you'd have to go back to the first half of the decade, before Eisner dissolved their cel-animation studios.Now that they've restarted their efforts things seem promising, and the upcoming animations "the princess and the frog" and "rapunzel" are highly anticipated, with names like Ron Clements, John Musker or Alan Menken who were crucial to some of their successes in the 90s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827813</id>
	<title>So the way this works is ...</title>
	<author>slinches</author>
	<datestamp>1256115660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You purchase a key that allows you access to the same media in different formats from different vendors (if available) and the files need to be downloaded each time you want to play the media on a given device?</p><p>How is this better than selling media in a standard format and letting the consumer transcode the file to whatever other formats they choose?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You purchase a key that allows you access to the same media in different formats from different vendors ( if available ) and the files need to be downloaded each time you want to play the media on a given device ? How is this better than selling media in a standard format and letting the consumer transcode the file to whatever other formats they choose ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You purchase a key that allows you access to the same media in different formats from different vendors (if available) and the files need to be downloaded each time you want to play the media on a given device?How is this better than selling media in a standard format and letting the consumer transcode the file to whatever other formats they choose?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828121</id>
	<title>Disney sells fairytale</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256116920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Extra, extra, read all about it. Disney sells fluffy fairytale DRM that likes to cuddle and sing.</p><p>It's not news. It's hype. Disney has always sold fairytales. Disney has always aggressively used DRM. It's the same broken set of ideas that is DRM, packaged yet again for a gullible public. I pay about as much attention to these "announcements" as I do to Nigerian get rich quick spam. No thanks Disney, I don't want to send you my financial details or buy that fairytale bridge that'll make me rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Extra , extra , read all about it .
Disney sells fluffy fairytale DRM that likes to cuddle and sing.It 's not news .
It 's hype .
Disney has always sold fairytales .
Disney has always aggressively used DRM .
It 's the same broken set of ideas that is DRM , packaged yet again for a gullible public .
I pay about as much attention to these " announcements " as I do to Nigerian get rich quick spam .
No thanks Disney , I do n't want to send you my financial details or buy that fairytale bridge that 'll make me rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extra, extra, read all about it.
Disney sells fluffy fairytale DRM that likes to cuddle and sing.It's not news.
It's hype.
Disney has always sold fairytales.
Disney has always aggressively used DRM.
It's the same broken set of ideas that is DRM, packaged yet again for a gullible public.
I pay about as much attention to these "announcements" as I do to Nigerian get rich quick spam.
No thanks Disney, I don't want to send you my financial details or buy that fairytale bridge that'll make me rich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831775</id>
	<title>DVD, CD, BluRay...meet USB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256144700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, the dvd-killer has been here a long time. I wish they would just put movies on USB thumb drives. Durable and scratch-resistant.<br>they could still apply their current encryption techniques to the USB drive. software and hardware player have to be made to look for it there. If they wanted to get real secret-squirrel, they could embed 'hardware keys' into the USB drive the same way some software packages look for a USB key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the dvd-killer has been here a long time .
I wish they would just put movies on USB thumb drives .
Durable and scratch-resistant.they could still apply their current encryption techniques to the USB drive .
software and hardware player have to be made to look for it there .
If they wanted to get real secret-squirrel , they could embed 'hardware keys ' into the USB drive the same way some software packages look for a USB key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the dvd-killer has been here a long time.
I wish they would just put movies on USB thumb drives.
Durable and scratch-resistant.they could still apply their current encryption techniques to the USB drive.
software and hardware player have to be made to look for it there.
If they wanted to get real secret-squirrel, they could embed 'hardware keys' into the USB drive the same way some software packages look for a USB key.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828801</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I can "buy" a season of a particular show, but I can't just pay to watch it once.</p></div></blockquote><p>You can rent movies on iTunes, probably can't do it for a TV show because the cost would be so low its not worth their effort.</p><blockquote><div><p> but it also puts me on the hook to store and maintain a copy. Sure, I can throw it away if I really only want to watch it once, but then I've payed "buying" price for a "rental".</p></div></blockquote><p>And you are paying a price thats lower than most rental fees anyway, so you aren't paying more for less.  You are paying less for more, on iTunes.</p><blockquote><div><p> I might actually be convinced to spend $20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted (if the original file was lost or deleted)</p></div></blockquote><p>Who replaces your DVD now when it is lost or scratched, for free, forever?</p><blockquote><div><p>is buy free access</p></div> </blockquote><p>Oxymoron, does not compute.</p><blockquote><div><p>that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again.</p></div></blockquote><p>With this system, there is no motivation for them to ever provide a higher quality version.  There is no additional income from doing so.  They would never bother releasing a higher quality version.</p><blockquote><div><p>Why should I spend $20 on a 720p version when I know a 1080p version exists and there's no predefined upgrade path.</p></div></blockquote><p>So don't buy it.  They are not required to provide you with anything, and you are not required to buy it, welcome to capitalism.  Wait for the 1080p release if you want that format.  You always pay a few to be the first adopter, get used to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can " buy " a season of a particular show , but I ca n't just pay to watch it once.You can rent movies on iTunes , probably ca n't do it for a TV show because the cost would be so low its not worth their effort .
but it also puts me on the hook to store and maintain a copy .
Sure , I can throw it away if I really only want to watch it once , but then I 've payed " buying " price for a " rental " .And you are paying a price thats lower than most rental fees anyway , so you are n't paying more for less .
You are paying less for more , on iTunes .
I might actually be convinced to spend $ 20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted ( if the original file was lost or deleted ) Who replaces your DVD now when it is lost or scratched , for free , forever ? is buy free access Oxymoron , does not compute.that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again.With this system , there is no motivation for them to ever provide a higher quality version .
There is no additional income from doing so .
They would never bother releasing a higher quality version.Why should I spend $ 20 on a 720p version when I know a 1080p version exists and there 's no predefined upgrade path.So do n't buy it .
They are not required to provide you with anything , and you are not required to buy it , welcome to capitalism .
Wait for the 1080p release if you want that format .
You always pay a few to be the first adopter , get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I can "buy" a season of a particular show, but I can't just pay to watch it once.You can rent movies on iTunes, probably can't do it for a TV show because the cost would be so low its not worth their effort.
but it also puts me on the hook to store and maintain a copy.
Sure, I can throw it away if I really only want to watch it once, but then I've payed "buying" price for a "rental".And you are paying a price thats lower than most rental fees anyway, so you aren't paying more for less.
You are paying less for more, on iTunes.
I might actually be convinced to spend $20 on a movie on iTunes if I knew that I could re-download it whenever I wanted (if the original file was lost or deleted)Who replaces your DVD now when it is lost or scratched, for free, forever?is buy free access Oxymoron, does not compute.that they quit trying to force me to re-buy the same movie over and over again.With this system, there is no motivation for them to ever provide a higher quality version.
There is no additional income from doing so.
They would never bother releasing a higher quality version.Why should I spend $20 on a 720p version when I know a 1080p version exists and there's no predefined upgrade path.So don't buy it.
They are not required to provide you with anything, and you are not required to buy it, welcome to capitalism.
Wait for the 1080p release if you want that format.
You always pay a few to be the first adopter, get used to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829433</id>
	<title>Re:I want some...</title>
	<author>genner</author>
	<datestamp>1256123100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... of whatever Disney is smoking!</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure whatever it is requires a needle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... of whatever Disney is smoking ! I 'm pretty sure whatever it is requires a needle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... of whatever Disney is smoking!I'm pretty sure whatever it is requires a needle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827617</id>
	<title>The reason Keychest service will survive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be backed by Flooz.</p><p>Some non-copyrighted character's nose is growing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be backed by Flooz.Some non-copyrighted character 's nose is growing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be backed by Flooz.Some non-copyrighted character's nose is growing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828007</id>
	<title>No Problem!</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1256116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"This coming from a company that puts movies in the vault for a decade to increase demand. How do they reconcile the two philosophies?"</i> <br> <br>

It's simple. Anything worth a shit you get to access one year in ten. You do, however, have the right and ability to watch Chicken Little as many times as you want for as long as their servers operate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This coming from a company that puts movies in the vault for a decade to increase demand .
How do they reconcile the two philosophies ?
" It 's simple .
Anything worth a shit you get to access one year in ten .
You do , however , have the right and ability to watch Chicken Little as many times as you want for as long as their servers operate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This coming from a company that puts movies in the vault for a decade to increase demand.
How do they reconcile the two philosophies?
"  

It's simple.
Anything worth a shit you get to access one year in ten.
You do, however, have the right and ability to watch Chicken Little as many times as you want for as long as their servers operate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830093</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or what if Disney itself goes out of business?</p></div><p>Many have already noted how unlikely that is, so here's a scenario that "works":<br>
<br>
After a time, Disney spins off the service as a separate company, maintaining a large enough ownership (say 40\%) to be able to strongly influence the new company, but not enough to be blamed if (meaning when) it fails.  Also, it would be good to seed the new company's board with Disney operatives.  To avoid suspicion, Disney should allow the new company to continue a while before clandestinely tanking it.  After the new company fails due to "a series of poor business decisions", and customers are left without "access" to films, Disney must step up (purely out of sympathy, of course) and open its "vault" to allow people to buy replacement media, but "these prices won't last forever, and soon we must return these classics to the vault".  If at all possible, this should be timed to happen when a new and shiny media format is on the horizon but not yet available, so customers are buying a dying format.  Publicly, Disney should express regret at the dissolution of the new company, while maintaining that the basic business model was sound and that they might consider trying again "when more of the public is ready for such new approaches to media".  If criticized, they must point to the now worthless 40\% share of the failed company while hoping nobody will look too closely at how the financials actually shake out - even if someone does, it's easy to deflect with "our accountants did what they could with a bad situation".  The best timing for Disney to start the next go-round would be soon after the peak of people replacing their old and tarnished media with the new and shiny media of the day.<br>
<br>
- T</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or what if Disney itself goes out of business ? Many have already noted how unlikely that is , so here 's a scenario that " works " : After a time , Disney spins off the service as a separate company , maintaining a large enough ownership ( say 40 \ % ) to be able to strongly influence the new company , but not enough to be blamed if ( meaning when ) it fails .
Also , it would be good to seed the new company 's board with Disney operatives .
To avoid suspicion , Disney should allow the new company to continue a while before clandestinely tanking it .
After the new company fails due to " a series of poor business decisions " , and customers are left without " access " to films , Disney must step up ( purely out of sympathy , of course ) and open its " vault " to allow people to buy replacement media , but " these prices wo n't last forever , and soon we must return these classics to the vault " .
If at all possible , this should be timed to happen when a new and shiny media format is on the horizon but not yet available , so customers are buying a dying format .
Publicly , Disney should express regret at the dissolution of the new company , while maintaining that the basic business model was sound and that they might consider trying again " when more of the public is ready for such new approaches to media " .
If criticized , they must point to the now worthless 40 \ % share of the failed company while hoping nobody will look too closely at how the financials actually shake out - even if someone does , it 's easy to deflect with " our accountants did what they could with a bad situation " .
The best timing for Disney to start the next go-round would be soon after the peak of people replacing their old and tarnished media with the new and shiny media of the day .
- T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or what if Disney itself goes out of business?Many have already noted how unlikely that is, so here's a scenario that "works":

After a time, Disney spins off the service as a separate company, maintaining a large enough ownership (say 40\%) to be able to strongly influence the new company, but not enough to be blamed if (meaning when) it fails.
Also, it would be good to seed the new company's board with Disney operatives.
To avoid suspicion, Disney should allow the new company to continue a while before clandestinely tanking it.
After the new company fails due to "a series of poor business decisions", and customers are left without "access" to films, Disney must step up (purely out of sympathy, of course) and open its "vault" to allow people to buy replacement media, but "these prices won't last forever, and soon we must return these classics to the vault".
If at all possible, this should be timed to happen when a new and shiny media format is on the horizon but not yet available, so customers are buying a dying format.
Publicly, Disney should express regret at the dissolution of the new company, while maintaining that the basic business model was sound and that they might consider trying again "when more of the public is ready for such new approaches to media".
If criticized, they must point to the now worthless 40\% share of the failed company while hoping nobody will look too closely at how the financials actually shake out - even if someone does, it's easy to deflect with "our accountants did what they could with a bad situation".
The best timing for Disney to start the next go-round would be soon after the peak of people replacing their old and tarnished media with the new and shiny media of the day.
- T
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828845</id>
	<title>Does anyone else find it disturbing that...</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1256120220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a company that was renowned for giving us stuff to watch is now going to start telling us how we can watch it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a company that was renowned for giving us stuff to watch is now going to start telling us how we can watch it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a company that was renowned for giving us stuff to watch is now going to start telling us how we can watch it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828233</id>
	<title>Please...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256117280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...let them call the tool that hacks this "Keyblade".</htmltext>
<tokenext>...let them call the tool that hacks this " Keyblade " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...let them call the tool that hacks this "Keyblade".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828653</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256119260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he's more machine than mouse now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's more machine than mouse now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's more machine than mouse now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831757</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1256144520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beware the DMCA and hope the FBI isn't watching when you crack the encryption.</p><p>Then again, bring it on.  I'd love for SCOTUS to kick the DMCA to the curb when it prevents you from enjoying first sale rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beware the DMCA and hope the FBI is n't watching when you crack the encryption.Then again , bring it on .
I 'd love for SCOTUS to kick the DMCA to the curb when it prevents you from enjoying first sale rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beware the DMCA and hope the FBI isn't watching when you crack the encryption.Then again, bring it on.
I'd love for SCOTUS to kick the DMCA to the curb when it prevents you from enjoying first sale rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29836421</id>
	<title>What's so hot about a DVD killer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256232000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DVDs are fragile, it doesn't cost too much to break them. Just drop them from a certain height and they're done.</p><p>And if you want to make sure, any hammer will do the job.</p><p>Where's the merit there, Disney?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DVDs are fragile , it does n't cost too much to break them .
Just drop them from a certain height and they 're done.And if you want to make sure , any hammer will do the job.Where 's the merit there , Disney ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVDs are fragile, it doesn't cost too much to break them.
Just drop them from a certain height and they're done.And if you want to make sure, any hammer will do the job.Where's the merit there, Disney?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29832405</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1256154000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disney is dead, indeed. Walt Disney that is - the creator, and the original creative force behind it all. The innovator, bringing animation to a new level. I always loved how smooth and natural looking the animations of Disney are, compared to virtually all other studios. Animals walking like animals, moving naturally and so. Mighty expensive to make of course: having real animals in the studio to study their movements when making a movie. Only now that computer animation reaches the same level for cheap, the rest of the world catches up on that.
</p><p>But indeed in the last couple decades nothing really original or new came out. They still make beautiful movies, though more and more are based on old fairy tales and so.
</p><p>Walt Disney was to his company what Steve Jobs is to Apple. The company can survive without him for a while but will whither and die in the long run. It's simply stagnating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney is dead , indeed .
Walt Disney that is - the creator , and the original creative force behind it all .
The innovator , bringing animation to a new level .
I always loved how smooth and natural looking the animations of Disney are , compared to virtually all other studios .
Animals walking like animals , moving naturally and so .
Mighty expensive to make of course : having real animals in the studio to study their movements when making a movie .
Only now that computer animation reaches the same level for cheap , the rest of the world catches up on that .
But indeed in the last couple decades nothing really original or new came out .
They still make beautiful movies , though more and more are based on old fairy tales and so .
Walt Disney was to his company what Steve Jobs is to Apple .
The company can survive without him for a while but will whither and die in the long run .
It 's simply stagnating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney is dead, indeed.
Walt Disney that is - the creator, and the original creative force behind it all.
The innovator, bringing animation to a new level.
I always loved how smooth and natural looking the animations of Disney are, compared to virtually all other studios.
Animals walking like animals, moving naturally and so.
Mighty expensive to make of course: having real animals in the studio to study their movements when making a movie.
Only now that computer animation reaches the same level for cheap, the rest of the world catches up on that.
But indeed in the last couple decades nothing really original or new came out.
They still make beautiful movies, though more and more are based on old fairy tales and so.
Walt Disney was to his company what Steve Jobs is to Apple.
The company can survive without him for a while but will whither and die in the long run.
It's simply stagnating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29835805</id>
	<title>Two Words:</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1256229120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hannah Montana<br>
<br>
Disney fired their CEO and promoted the head of their Franchise making depart to be the new CEO.  The new Disney model is merchandising.  You can't make money on movies anymore and Disney knows this.  What you can do is create an awesome two hour commercial and get all the kids to buy the merchandise.  A physical product that can be protected, enforced, confiscated, etc.  The future of Disney is free distribution of its digital media and then merchandise the hell out of it.  Selling a parent a $20 DVD one time and having the parent resent you for it isn't making you money.  Selling billions of princess toys, comforters, wall paper, bed sheets, t-shirts, etc is where the money is at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hannah Montana Disney fired their CEO and promoted the head of their Franchise making depart to be the new CEO .
The new Disney model is merchandising .
You ca n't make money on movies anymore and Disney knows this .
What you can do is create an awesome two hour commercial and get all the kids to buy the merchandise .
A physical product that can be protected , enforced , confiscated , etc .
The future of Disney is free distribution of its digital media and then merchandise the hell out of it .
Selling a parent a $ 20 DVD one time and having the parent resent you for it is n't making you money .
Selling billions of princess toys , comforters , wall paper , bed sheets , t-shirts , etc is where the money is at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hannah Montana

Disney fired their CEO and promoted the head of their Franchise making depart to be the new CEO.
The new Disney model is merchandising.
You can't make money on movies anymore and Disney knows this.
What you can do is create an awesome two hour commercial and get all the kids to buy the merchandise.
A physical product that can be protected, enforced, confiscated, etc.
The future of Disney is free distribution of its digital media and then merchandise the hell out of it.
Selling a parent a $20 DVD one time and having the parent resent you for it isn't making you money.
Selling billions of princess toys, comforters, wall paper, bed sheets, t-shirts, etc is where the money is at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631</id>
	<title>Disney sells product that solves Disney's problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They continue to try and convince the world that THEIR problem is actually the world's problem.  No.

People LIKE owning.  We don't like 'accessing'.  If I want to own a movie, I pay the cost to watch it no more than 3 times.   If I want to 'access' a movie with a huge screen and fantastic sound, then I go to a theater and pay less than 1/3 that cost.

If you want to charge for access instead of ownership, without the enhanced screen and audio, then you have to charge a lot less than ownership.

If Disney's new system is going to be priced like ownership, no one will use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They continue to try and convince the world that THEIR problem is actually the world 's problem .
No . People LIKE owning .
We do n't like 'accessing' .
If I want to own a movie , I pay the cost to watch it no more than 3 times .
If I want to 'access ' a movie with a huge screen and fantastic sound , then I go to a theater and pay less than 1/3 that cost .
If you want to charge for access instead of ownership , without the enhanced screen and audio , then you have to charge a lot less than ownership .
If Disney 's new system is going to be priced like ownership , no one will use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They continue to try and convince the world that THEIR problem is actually the world's problem.
No.

People LIKE owning.
We don't like 'accessing'.
If I want to own a movie, I pay the cost to watch it no more than 3 times.
If I want to 'access' a movie with a huge screen and fantastic sound, then I go to a theater and pay less than 1/3 that cost.
If you want to charge for access instead of ownership, without the enhanced screen and audio, then you have to charge a lot less than ownership.
If Disney's new system is going to be priced like ownership, no one will use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830621</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>BrentH</author>
	<datestamp>1256131380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you writing a poem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you writing a poem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you writing a poem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828309</id>
	<title>Be afraid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256117520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care what the ads say.  The only thing that will matter is what's in a legally-binding contract.  Not a TOS that Disney will doubtless reserve the right to change, but a contract.  And in case you're wondering about the possible limitations that will likely come along, let me throw out a few:</p><p>1. Sure, you get perpetual viewing rights, but they only last for as long as the Keychest service does.  Anyone who bought DRM'ed music from MSN or Yahoo got a taste of what could happen if the DRM servers are taken down.  And, as someone else already pointed out, there's nothing to stop Disney from pulling the plug if profits aren't to their liking.  Does that mean you'll lose access to all the stuff you bought?  Yes, but here's a book of discount coupons so you can save a few bucks on all the DVDs you're going to have to buy to rebuild your movie collection.</p><p>2. Would you like to sell that movie you've grown tired of?  Not with Keychest, you can't.  Suddenly, used DVD sales go away, which is something the studios have wished for for quite a long time.  See, wishes can come true!</p><p>3. It's a fact that studios love trailers and commercials.  Actually, trailers ARE commercials, and a service like Keychest allows the ads to get changed out at any time, and I'd be willing to bet that you won't be able to skip them.  Are there no ads before that movie you just bought?  Maybe not now, but they could appear any time down the road.</p><p>The thing is, Keychest is meant to solve the studios' problems, not mine.  I have no problem with the ownership model, thank you very much.  I also have no problem with playing the movies on my shelf in any device I want.  If I want to load them onto a laptop, I'll either burn a copy to a blank disc (so the DVD can stay safely at home) or rip it and load it on the hard drive.  Does that violate the DMCA?  Maybe, but it solves my problem very nicely, it doesn't distribute the movie to anyone who hasn't paid for it, and I don't need a crippled service like Keychest to accomplish it, so I'm just fine with it.</p><p>I don't care if Disney sees this as a DVD killer.  They may want to kill the DVD, but I don't, so they can go pound sand for all I care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care what the ads say .
The only thing that will matter is what 's in a legally-binding contract .
Not a TOS that Disney will doubtless reserve the right to change , but a contract .
And in case you 're wondering about the possible limitations that will likely come along , let me throw out a few : 1 .
Sure , you get perpetual viewing rights , but they only last for as long as the Keychest service does .
Anyone who bought DRM'ed music from MSN or Yahoo got a taste of what could happen if the DRM servers are taken down .
And , as someone else already pointed out , there 's nothing to stop Disney from pulling the plug if profits are n't to their liking .
Does that mean you 'll lose access to all the stuff you bought ?
Yes , but here 's a book of discount coupons so you can save a few bucks on all the DVDs you 're going to have to buy to rebuild your movie collection.2 .
Would you like to sell that movie you 've grown tired of ?
Not with Keychest , you ca n't .
Suddenly , used DVD sales go away , which is something the studios have wished for for quite a long time .
See , wishes can come true ! 3 .
It 's a fact that studios love trailers and commercials .
Actually , trailers ARE commercials , and a service like Keychest allows the ads to get changed out at any time , and I 'd be willing to bet that you wo n't be able to skip them .
Are there no ads before that movie you just bought ?
Maybe not now , but they could appear any time down the road.The thing is , Keychest is meant to solve the studios ' problems , not mine .
I have no problem with the ownership model , thank you very much .
I also have no problem with playing the movies on my shelf in any device I want .
If I want to load them onto a laptop , I 'll either burn a copy to a blank disc ( so the DVD can stay safely at home ) or rip it and load it on the hard drive .
Does that violate the DMCA ?
Maybe , but it solves my problem very nicely , it does n't distribute the movie to anyone who has n't paid for it , and I do n't need a crippled service like Keychest to accomplish it , so I 'm just fine with it.I do n't care if Disney sees this as a DVD killer .
They may want to kill the DVD , but I do n't , so they can go pound sand for all I care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care what the ads say.
The only thing that will matter is what's in a legally-binding contract.
Not a TOS that Disney will doubtless reserve the right to change, but a contract.
And in case you're wondering about the possible limitations that will likely come along, let me throw out a few:1.
Sure, you get perpetual viewing rights, but they only last for as long as the Keychest service does.
Anyone who bought DRM'ed music from MSN or Yahoo got a taste of what could happen if the DRM servers are taken down.
And, as someone else already pointed out, there's nothing to stop Disney from pulling the plug if profits aren't to their liking.
Does that mean you'll lose access to all the stuff you bought?
Yes, but here's a book of discount coupons so you can save a few bucks on all the DVDs you're going to have to buy to rebuild your movie collection.2.
Would you like to sell that movie you've grown tired of?
Not with Keychest, you can't.
Suddenly, used DVD sales go away, which is something the studios have wished for for quite a long time.
See, wishes can come true!3.
It's a fact that studios love trailers and commercials.
Actually, trailers ARE commercials, and a service like Keychest allows the ads to get changed out at any time, and I'd be willing to bet that you won't be able to skip them.
Are there no ads before that movie you just bought?
Maybe not now, but they could appear any time down the road.The thing is, Keychest is meant to solve the studios' problems, not mine.
I have no problem with the ownership model, thank you very much.
I also have no problem with playing the movies on my shelf in any device I want.
If I want to load them onto a laptop, I'll either burn a copy to a blank disc (so the DVD can stay safely at home) or rip it and load it on the hard drive.
Does that violate the DMCA?
Maybe, but it solves my problem very nicely, it doesn't distribute the movie to anyone who hasn't paid for it, and I don't need a crippled service like Keychest to accomplish it, so I'm just fine with it.I don't care if Disney sees this as a DVD killer.
They may want to kill the DVD, but I don't, so they can go pound sand for all I care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827871</id>
	<title>here are a few reasons why we should</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1256115960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>assume this wont work.

<br> <br>1.  you were never meant to keep these 'treasured classics' forever like a book.  this hurts the business model and prevents releasing such wonderous hits as Cinderella 4.<br> <br>
2.  if it isnt open source, it wont be worth a damn.  Proprietary encoders and decoders once obsoleted are nearly impossible to reconstruct or reverse-engineer for playback without finding yourself hauled into a Texas courtroom for patent infringement.  the 'final solution' they tout will likely involve nothing but closed source players interwoven so closely, you'll forget to question it being a bad idea in light of historical defiance between them.<br> <br>
3.  If its a DVD killer, and you own a majority of DVDs, why would you buy it?  youve obsoleted the very thing you seek to keep indefinitely?<br> <br>
my theory is there will be a transition.  first we had purchasing movies, now we have licensing movies to DVD, and finally we will have with Disneys 'killer' the ability to license limited viewing rights.  the content may remain available in a unary format forever, but a recurring cost is introduced and you lose in the end the ability to watch a movie without being monitored for content infringement of "intellectual property" rights.  inevitably movies may be retired from the collection, rerendered to lower or higher formats at disneys whim, or require suddenly a new television or provide new advertising content not originally found in the obsolete version you saught to keep.  "authoring rights" will be expanded and more buttons on your remote will do less things when you want them to (example: skipping 'dont download a car' scaremercials.)
<br> <br>
there is also another possibility entirely:  Disney develops this device to lure customers into parting with books and DVD classics, then retires the device in ~8 years to ditch the poor suckers who believed in it as a viable alternative thus driving up sales in existing media for the time as a sort of 'umbrella' in case of stormy economic conditions.  user ditches device, goes to walmart, buys latest instalment of Cincerella 5 and another copy of Cinderella 4 because that one is dead now, disney cash registers ring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>assume this wont work .
1. you were never meant to keep these 'treasured classics ' forever like a book .
this hurts the business model and prevents releasing such wonderous hits as Cinderella 4 .
2. if it isnt open source , it wont be worth a damn .
Proprietary encoders and decoders once obsoleted are nearly impossible to reconstruct or reverse-engineer for playback without finding yourself hauled into a Texas courtroom for patent infringement .
the 'final solution ' they tout will likely involve nothing but closed source players interwoven so closely , you 'll forget to question it being a bad idea in light of historical defiance between them .
3. If its a DVD killer , and you own a majority of DVDs , why would you buy it ?
youve obsoleted the very thing you seek to keep indefinitely ?
my theory is there will be a transition .
first we had purchasing movies , now we have licensing movies to DVD , and finally we will have with Disneys 'killer ' the ability to license limited viewing rights .
the content may remain available in a unary format forever , but a recurring cost is introduced and you lose in the end the ability to watch a movie without being monitored for content infringement of " intellectual property " rights .
inevitably movies may be retired from the collection , rerendered to lower or higher formats at disneys whim , or require suddenly a new television or provide new advertising content not originally found in the obsolete version you saught to keep .
" authoring rights " will be expanded and more buttons on your remote will do less things when you want them to ( example : skipping 'dont download a car ' scaremercials .
) there is also another possibility entirely : Disney develops this device to lure customers into parting with books and DVD classics , then retires the device in ~ 8 years to ditch the poor suckers who believed in it as a viable alternative thus driving up sales in existing media for the time as a sort of 'umbrella ' in case of stormy economic conditions .
user ditches device , goes to walmart , buys latest instalment of Cincerella 5 and another copy of Cinderella 4 because that one is dead now , disney cash registers ring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>assume this wont work.
1.  you were never meant to keep these 'treasured classics' forever like a book.
this hurts the business model and prevents releasing such wonderous hits as Cinderella 4.
2.  if it isnt open source, it wont be worth a damn.
Proprietary encoders and decoders once obsoleted are nearly impossible to reconstruct or reverse-engineer for playback without finding yourself hauled into a Texas courtroom for patent infringement.
the 'final solution' they tout will likely involve nothing but closed source players interwoven so closely, you'll forget to question it being a bad idea in light of historical defiance between them.
3.  If its a DVD killer, and you own a majority of DVDs, why would you buy it?
youve obsoleted the very thing you seek to keep indefinitely?
my theory is there will be a transition.
first we had purchasing movies, now we have licensing movies to DVD, and finally we will have with Disneys 'killer' the ability to license limited viewing rights.
the content may remain available in a unary format forever, but a recurring cost is introduced and you lose in the end the ability to watch a movie without being monitored for content infringement of "intellectual property" rights.
inevitably movies may be retired from the collection, rerendered to lower or higher formats at disneys whim, or require suddenly a new television or provide new advertising content not originally found in the obsolete version you saught to keep.
"authoring rights" will be expanded and more buttons on your remote will do less things when you want them to (example: skipping 'dont download a car' scaremercials.
)
 
there is also another possibility entirely:  Disney develops this device to lure customers into parting with books and DVD classics, then retires the device in ~8 years to ditch the poor suckers who believed in it as a viable alternative thus driving up sales in existing media for the time as a sort of 'umbrella' in case of stormy economic conditions.
user ditches device, goes to walmart, buys latest instalment of Cincerella 5 and another copy of Cinderella 4 because that one is dead now, disney cash registers ring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256117460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new films</p></div><p>I have to disagree. The one thing that Disney can do like no one else, and which is therefore their primary value, is merchandising the crap out of existing content. When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie (Pixar doesn't count)? When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience won't cringe at in a few years?</p><p>For crying out loud, they're releasing a double-feature of Toy Story 1 and 2 in 3D now! Creatively, Disney is dead. Their saving grace in that department is Pixar. And Disney knows that - which is exactly why they're focusing so much on merchandise, 3D, theme parks, copyright protection, and now this scheme. They know they can't create new content. That's why they're coming up with a million ideas on how to sell you old stuff again. And again. And again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new filmsI have to disagree .
The one thing that Disney can do like no one else , and which is therefore their primary value , is merchandising the crap out of existing content .
When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie ( Pixar does n't count ) ?
When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience wo n't cringe at in a few years ? For crying out loud , they 're releasing a double-feature of Toy Story 1 and 2 in 3D now !
Creatively , Disney is dead .
Their saving grace in that department is Pixar .
And Disney knows that - which is exactly why they 're focusing so much on merchandise , 3D , theme parks , copyright protection , and now this scheme .
They know they ca n't create new content .
That 's why they 're coming up with a million ideas on how to sell you old stuff again .
And again .
And again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new filmsI have to disagree.
The one thing that Disney can do like no one else, and which is therefore their primary value, is merchandising the crap out of existing content.
When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie (Pixar doesn't count)?
When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience won't cringe at in a few years?For crying out loud, they're releasing a double-feature of Toy Story 1 and 2 in 3D now!
Creatively, Disney is dead.
Their saving grace in that department is Pixar.
And Disney knows that - which is exactly why they're focusing so much on merchandise, 3D, theme parks, copyright protection, and now this scheme.
They know they can't create new content.
That's why they're coming up with a million ideas on how to sell you old stuff again.
And again.
And again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1256158260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I mean, does the solution here have to be complicated?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
For you, no.  All you have to do is 1) purchase the DVD (or whatever), 2) rip it to a hard drive, 3) transcode to whatever format the playing device will accept (MPEG, AVI, MP3, whatever 4) transfer it to the device 5) enjoy 6) Backup original so you don't lose or destroy it. Repeat as desired.<br> <br>
For Mush-for-Brains average consumer - it might be a bit much to expect.  Hence, other ideas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , does the solution here have to be complicated ?
For you , no .
All you have to do is 1 ) purchase the DVD ( or whatever ) , 2 ) rip it to a hard drive , 3 ) transcode to whatever format the playing device will accept ( MPEG , AVI , MP3 , whatever 4 ) transfer it to the device 5 ) enjoy 6 ) Backup original so you do n't lose or destroy it .
Repeat as desired .
For Mush-for-Brains average consumer - it might be a bit much to expect .
Hence , other ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, does the solution here have to be complicated?
For you, no.
All you have to do is 1) purchase the DVD (or whatever), 2) rip it to a hard drive, 3) transcode to whatever format the playing device will accept (MPEG, AVI, MP3, whatever 4) transfer it to the device 5) enjoy 6) Backup original so you don't lose or destroy it.
Repeat as desired.
For Mush-for-Brains average consumer - it might be a bit much to expect.
Hence, other ideas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895</id>
	<title>And what happens when the copyright ends?</title>
	<author>thesupraman</author>
	<datestamp>1256116080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, that annoying little detail in the copyright law that states once the copyright lapses the content becomes public property?<br>The price we are supposed to get for our taxes paying for the protection of their rights?</p><p>Oh, they didnt think of that? Their intention is for us to never own the content? Hmm.....</p><p>Although the DMCA has tried to remove that 'right' already, of course through making it illegal to be able to remove such protection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , that annoying little detail in the copyright law that states once the copyright lapses the content becomes public property ? The price we are supposed to get for our taxes paying for the protection of their rights ? Oh , they didnt think of that ?
Their intention is for us to never own the content ?
Hmm.....Although the DMCA has tried to remove that 'right ' already , of course through making it illegal to be able to remove such protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, that annoying little detail in the copyright law that states once the copyright lapses the content becomes public property?The price we are supposed to get for our taxes paying for the protection of their rights?Oh, they didnt think of that?
Their intention is for us to never own the content?
Hmm.....Although the DMCA has tried to remove that 'right' already, of course through making it illegal to be able to remove such protection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829167</id>
	<title>Don't we already have this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256121720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say I have knowledge, gained in some way, that certain people have been encoding HD movies, without DRM, in near perfect quality at as low as 2 gigs of information. Let's say they've been doing this for a while, and quite frankly it already allows unlimited access, to unlimited media devices as is. Now Disney's plan, it seems to me, is to make something worse than this and then charge more for it. I'm sure this business plan made all kinds of sense in the boardroom where it was concocted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say I have knowledge , gained in some way , that certain people have been encoding HD movies , without DRM , in near perfect quality at as low as 2 gigs of information .
Let 's say they 've been doing this for a while , and quite frankly it already allows unlimited access , to unlimited media devices as is .
Now Disney 's plan , it seems to me , is to make something worse than this and then charge more for it .
I 'm sure this business plan made all kinds of sense in the boardroom where it was concocted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say I have knowledge, gained in some way, that certain people have been encoding HD movies, without DRM, in near perfect quality at as low as 2 gigs of information.
Let's say they've been doing this for a while, and quite frankly it already allows unlimited access, to unlimited media devices as is.
Now Disney's plan, it seems to me, is to make something worse than this and then charge more for it.
I'm sure this business plan made all kinds of sense in the boardroom where it was concocted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827995</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately...that's not quite true. Steam, and especially Valve's games, have done quite well, despite the customer not owning the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately...that 's not quite true .
Steam , and especially Valve 's games , have done quite well , despite the customer not owning the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately...that's not quite true.
Steam, and especially Valve's games, have done quite well, despite the customer not owning the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828079</id>
	<title>Re:And what happens when the copyright ends?</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1256116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Disney. Their lawyers are the ones responsible for ensuring that nothing after Mickey Mouse was created will ever enter the public domain...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Disney .
Their lawyers are the ones responsible for ensuring that nothing after Mickey Mouse was created will ever enter the public domain.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Disney.
Their lawyers are the ones responsible for ensuring that nothing after Mickey Mouse was created will ever enter the public domain...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828169</id>
	<title>what happens to customers' access</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256117100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>they do not seem to have addressed the question of what happens to customers' access to purchased content if the Keychest service itself is discontinued</p></div></blockquote><p>

SHUT UP! The user is not supposed to think about that until they launch keychest 2!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they do not seem to have addressed the question of what happens to customers ' access to purchased content if the Keychest service itself is discontinued SHUT UP !
The user is not supposed to think about that until they launch keychest 2 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they do not seem to have addressed the question of what happens to customers' access to purchased content if the Keychest service itself is discontinued

SHUT UP!
The user is not supposed to think about that until they launch keychest 2!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828837</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>SlashDotDotDot</author>
	<datestamp>1256120160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And that is Disney's real problem.  The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new films.  They need to stop fixating on trying to sell copies of their films and focus on how to persuade people to pay them to make new films.  That is the kind of innovation the industry needs, not new forms of DRM.</p></div><p>Another poster here talks about Disney's new system as being "an industry solution in search of a consumer problem".  What you've proposed is a consumer solution in search of an industry problem.  DVD sales are a <a href="http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/weekly/thisweek.php" title="the-numbers.com">huge cash cow</a> [the-numbers.com], and they'd be fools to give that up easily.  Making new movies is a risky, expensive undertaking.  Selling DVDs is a cheap, reliable revenue stream.  There is increasing consumer demand to move away from physical media towards downloaded content, and Disney is sure as hell going to try to find a profitable way to make that switch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is Disney 's real problem .
The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new films .
They need to stop fixating on trying to sell copies of their films and focus on how to persuade people to pay them to make new films .
That is the kind of innovation the industry needs , not new forms of DRM.Another poster here talks about Disney 's new system as being " an industry solution in search of a consumer problem " .
What you 've proposed is a consumer solution in search of an industry problem .
DVD sales are a huge cash cow [ the-numbers.com ] , and they 'd be fools to give that up easily .
Making new movies is a risky , expensive undertaking .
Selling DVDs is a cheap , reliable revenue stream .
There is increasing consumer demand to move away from physical media towards downloaded content , and Disney is sure as hell going to try to find a profitable way to make that switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is Disney's real problem.
The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new films.
They need to stop fixating on trying to sell copies of their films and focus on how to persuade people to pay them to make new films.
That is the kind of innovation the industry needs, not new forms of DRM.Another poster here talks about Disney's new system as being "an industry solution in search of a consumer problem".
What you've proposed is a consumer solution in search of an industry problem.
DVD sales are a huge cash cow [the-numbers.com], and they'd be fools to give that up easily.
Making new movies is a risky, expensive undertaking.
Selling DVDs is a cheap, reliable revenue stream.
There is increasing consumer demand to move away from physical media towards downloaded content, and Disney is sure as hell going to try to find a profitable way to make that switch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29836463</id>
	<title>Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256232180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dead on delivery</p><p>Only the uneducated masses will buy this for the first year.  Myself, those who are educated on the subject and those who've experienced a year of problems will avoid it like the plague.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dead on deliveryOnly the uneducated masses will buy this for the first year .
Myself , those who are educated on the subject and those who 've experienced a year of problems will avoid it like the plague .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dead on deliveryOnly the uneducated masses will buy this for the first year.
Myself, those who are educated on the subject and those who've experienced a year of problems will avoid it like the plague.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828567</id>
	<title>*slaps forehead*</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1256118720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>any media distribution system that takes distributor's concerns into account will fail. distributor's concerns are orthogonal and sometimes hostile to what consumers want. therefore, addressing these sideshow concerns winds up designing a media distribution system that is suboptimal from the only concern that really matters</p><p>what concern is that? you determine the media distribution system that will succeed based on... drum roll please... this amazing newfangled metric called GIVE THE CUSTOMER WHAT HE FUCKING WANTS. END OF FUCKING STORY</p><p>i swear, is it a job requirement for being a media executive to be tone deaf? pun not intended: these assholes are seriously conceptually tone deaf</p><p>perhaps previous job experience such as "grave digger" is germane as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>any media distribution system that takes distributor 's concerns into account will fail .
distributor 's concerns are orthogonal and sometimes hostile to what consumers want .
therefore , addressing these sideshow concerns winds up designing a media distribution system that is suboptimal from the only concern that really matterswhat concern is that ?
you determine the media distribution system that will succeed based on... drum roll please... this amazing newfangled metric called GIVE THE CUSTOMER WHAT HE FUCKING WANTS .
END OF FUCKING STORYi swear , is it a job requirement for being a media executive to be tone deaf ?
pun not intended : these assholes are seriously conceptually tone deafperhaps previous job experience such as " grave digger " is germane as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>any media distribution system that takes distributor's concerns into account will fail.
distributor's concerns are orthogonal and sometimes hostile to what consumers want.
therefore, addressing these sideshow concerns winds up designing a media distribution system that is suboptimal from the only concern that really matterswhat concern is that?
you determine the media distribution system that will succeed based on... drum roll please... this amazing newfangled metric called GIVE THE CUSTOMER WHAT HE FUCKING WANTS.
END OF FUCKING STORYi swear, is it a job requirement for being a media executive to be tone deaf?
pun not intended: these assholes are seriously conceptually tone deafperhaps previous job experience such as "grave digger" is germane as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29833833</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>weber</author>
	<datestamp>1256217480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>7a) make available on favorite filesharing network, OR<br>7b) if someone has already done 7a) Skip 1)-6) and get it the easy way.</p><p>If you're selling something that has virtually no value, it's all about convinience (bottled water analogy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>7a ) make available on favorite filesharing network , OR7b ) if someone has already done 7a ) Skip 1 ) -6 ) and get it the easy way.If you 're selling something that has virtually no value , it 's all about convinience ( bottled water analogy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7a) make available on favorite filesharing network, OR7b) if someone has already done 7a) Skip 1)-6) and get it the easy way.If you're selling something that has virtually no value, it's all about convinience (bottled water analogy).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827603</id>
	<title>Tyranny by another name...</title>
	<author>neurogeneticist</author>
	<datestamp>1256158020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So basically this is not permanent at all, just subject to the whims of yet another overlord.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically this is not permanent at all , just subject to the whims of yet another overlord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically this is not permanent at all, just subject to the whims of yet another overlord.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829799</id>
	<title>Trust Disney?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1256125440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm no thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm no thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm no thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29839429</id>
	<title>Want new sales? Make new content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256202120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The subject line sums it up rather simply. Instead of worrying so much about trying to re-sell old IP to customers again and again, put out NEW content to be bought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The subject line sums it up rather simply .
Instead of worrying so much about trying to re-sell old IP to customers again and again , put out NEW content to be bought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subject line sums it up rather simply.
Instead of worrying so much about trying to re-sell old IP to customers again and again, put out NEW content to be bought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829187</id>
	<title>Re:Disney sells product that solves Disney's probl</title>
	<author>maharb</author>
	<datestamp>1256121780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do own valve games, you are not renting them and if you do go to the store you gets discs to have.  Steam is awesome but to say steam is a "rental" of the game is downright false.  You can continue to play games that you owned via the steam system forever, with no monthly fees.  That is more ownership than you get with most physical things these days.  Don't get me wrong, steam is doing awesome but it isn't what you are claiming it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do own valve games , you are not renting them and if you do go to the store you gets discs to have .
Steam is awesome but to say steam is a " rental " of the game is downright false .
You can continue to play games that you owned via the steam system forever , with no monthly fees .
That is more ownership than you get with most physical things these days .
Do n't get me wrong , steam is doing awesome but it is n't what you are claiming it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do own valve games, you are not renting them and if you do go to the store you gets discs to have.
Steam is awesome but to say steam is a "rental" of the game is downright false.
You can continue to play games that you owned via the steam system forever, with no monthly fees.
That is more ownership than you get with most physical things these days.
Don't get me wrong, steam is doing awesome but it isn't what you are claiming it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829029</id>
	<title>Comcast is in on this</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256121000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't care if you call it downloading or streaming. It still has to move across something with a hell of a lot of bandwidth.</p></div><p>Comcast is in on this. If Comcast runs a caching proxy for Keychest users on its High Speed Internet and Digital Cable services, it can get the bandwidth cheap.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I suspect that most people don't save movies on hard disks (other than those they've saved on their DVR's hard disk).</p></div><p>Exactly. Keychest users would be able to stream any unlocked video to their STB.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When I can get a computer or a phone with a 57" screen</p></div><p>Most HDTVs support PC video formats. See <a href="http://pineight.com/mw/?title=Cable\_finder" title="pineight.com">Cable finder</a> [pineight.com] for details.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if you call it downloading or streaming .
It still has to move across something with a hell of a lot of bandwidth.Comcast is in on this .
If Comcast runs a caching proxy for Keychest users on its High Speed Internet and Digital Cable services , it can get the bandwidth cheap.I suspect that most people do n't save movies on hard disks ( other than those they 've saved on their DVR 's hard disk ) .Exactly .
Keychest users would be able to stream any unlocked video to their STB.When I can get a computer or a phone with a 57 " screenMost HDTVs support PC video formats .
See Cable finder [ pineight.com ] for details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if you call it downloading or streaming.
It still has to move across something with a hell of a lot of bandwidth.Comcast is in on this.
If Comcast runs a caching proxy for Keychest users on its High Speed Internet and Digital Cable services, it can get the bandwidth cheap.I suspect that most people don't save movies on hard disks (other than those they've saved on their DVR's hard disk).Exactly.
Keychest users would be able to stream any unlocked video to their STB.When I can get a computer or a phone with a 57" screenMost HDTVs support PC video formats.
See Cable finder [pineight.com] for details.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829819</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>mouseblue</author>
	<datestamp>1256125560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget you will always have a trusty animal sidekick and a ragtag group of friends for comedic effect or Broadway musical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget you will always have a trusty animal sidekick and a ragtag group of friends for comedic effect or Broadway musical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget you will always have a trusty animal sidekick and a ragtag group of friends for comedic effect or Broadway musical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827867</id>
	<title>A DVD Killer?</title>
	<author>loftwyr</author>
	<datestamp>1256115900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disney is going to start selling a Microwave Oven?   Will it be better than my EasyBake?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney is going to start selling a Microwave Oven ?
Will it be better than my EasyBake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney is going to start selling a Microwave Oven?
Will it be better than my EasyBake?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829395</id>
	<title>Re:Dead DRM remote-authorization services.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256122920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough, content I've gotten for free from places like The Pirate Bay works and will continue to work forever.</p><p>Now why again should I pay for DRM content which dies when the authorization server dies?  Paying more for less is lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough , content I 've gotten for free from places like The Pirate Bay works and will continue to work forever.Now why again should I pay for DRM content which dies when the authorization server dies ?
Paying more for less is lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough, content I've gotten for free from places like The Pirate Bay works and will continue to work forever.Now why again should I pay for DRM content which dies when the authorization server dies?
Paying more for less is lame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29858423</id>
	<title>Internet Close To Unveiling New "Disney Killer"</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256412840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Blogosphere reports that the Internet is close to giving birth to a new society that will create permanent, multi-artform sources of creative entertainment. Once the Internet has grown up to its full potential, the need for old-world media companies will vanish, taking, amongst others, Disney with it.</p></div><p>There, fixed it for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Blogosphere reports that the Internet is close to giving birth to a new society that will create permanent , multi-artform sources of creative entertainment .
Once the Internet has grown up to its full potential , the need for old-world media companies will vanish , taking , amongst others , Disney with it.There , fixed it for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Blogosphere reports that the Internet is close to giving birth to a new society that will create permanent, multi-artform sources of creative entertainment.
Once the Internet has grown up to its full potential, the need for old-world media companies will vanish, taking, amongst others, Disney with it.There, fixed it for ya.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829237</id>
	<title>is it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256122140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... a USB stick?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... a USB stick ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... a USB stick?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828931</id>
	<title>Do Not Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256120580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I'll continue owning, thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'll continue owning , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'll continue owning, thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828515</id>
	<title>Re:"Redefining ownership as access rights..."</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1256118540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rats. Already posted, so no mod points for you. But yes. The entire content industry - scratch that, all industries - hates the fact the concept of ownership transferring. It's a onetime payment that results in a loss of inventory for them. If, however, they can get people to shell out money for access... well, they can get partial payments that cumulatively are a lot higher than what they could expect from a one-time payment, and they have to produce less.</p><p>For them, it's win-win on both fronts. For consumers, it's a loss no matter how you look at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rats .
Already posted , so no mod points for you .
But yes .
The entire content industry - scratch that , all industries - hates the fact the concept of ownership transferring .
It 's a onetime payment that results in a loss of inventory for them .
If , however , they can get people to shell out money for access... well , they can get partial payments that cumulatively are a lot higher than what they could expect from a one-time payment , and they have to produce less.For them , it 's win-win on both fronts .
For consumers , it 's a loss no matter how you look at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rats.
Already posted, so no mod points for you.
But yes.
The entire content industry - scratch that, all industries - hates the fact the concept of ownership transferring.
It's a onetime payment that results in a loss of inventory for them.
If, however, they can get people to shell out money for access... well, they can get partial payments that cumulatively are a lot higher than what they could expect from a one-time payment, and they have to produce less.For them, it's win-win on both fronts.
For consumers, it's a loss no matter how you look at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828841</id>
	<title>Remember that Disney owns ABC and ESPN</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256120160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience won't cringe at in a few years?</p></div><p>Is this supposed to be a thinly veiled criticism of the programming on the ABC network, ESPN, and several networks partly owned by Disney such as A&amp;E, Lifetime, and History?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience wo n't cringe at in a few years ? Is this supposed to be a thinly veiled criticism of the programming on the ABC network , ESPN , and several networks partly owned by Disney such as A&amp;E , Lifetime , and History ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience won't cringe at in a few years?Is this supposed to be a thinly veiled criticism of the programming on the ABC network, ESPN, and several networks partly owned by Disney such as A&amp;E, Lifetime, and History?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829563</id>
	<title>Steve Jobs input?</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1256123880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He is on the board of directors.  And I believe he may be the largest individual shareholder.  Both of these as a result of the Pixar sale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He is on the board of directors .
And I believe he may be the largest individual shareholder .
Both of these as a result of the Pixar sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is on the board of directors.
And I believe he may be the largest individual shareholder.
Both of these as a result of the Pixar sale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830961</id>
	<title>Re:Durable medium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256134440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thus Disney is in the problematic position of having<br>a durable physical medium that may cause an eventual<br>saturation of their target market.</p></div><p>Durable medium, my SFF (or the letters on the keys right next to them).</p><p>Have you ever seen what a 4year old can do to a DVD!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus Disney is in the problematic position of havinga durable physical medium that may cause an eventualsaturation of their target market.Durable medium , my SFF ( or the letters on the keys right next to them ) .Have you ever seen what a 4year old can do to a DVD !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus Disney is in the problematic position of havinga durable physical medium that may cause an eventualsaturation of their target market.Durable medium, my SFF (or the letters on the keys right next to them).Have you ever seen what a 4year old can do to a DVD!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829999</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>danomac</author>
	<datestamp>1256126880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perhaps the next generation will inherit
all of our Disney DVDs and there will be no reason
for him to buy his own copy. THIS is probably what
scares the bejezzus out of Disney.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I wish I inherited DVDs. I inherited a bunch of (Disney) VHS tapes, and I have no videocassette player!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the next generation will inherit all of our Disney DVDs and there will be no reason for him to buy his own copy .
THIS is probably what scares the bejezzus out of Disney .
I wish I inherited DVDs .
I inherited a bunch of ( Disney ) VHS tapes , and I have no videocassette player !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the next generation will inherit
all of our Disney DVDs and there will be no reason
for him to buy his own copy.
THIS is probably what
scares the bejezzus out of Disney.
I wish I inherited DVDs.
I inherited a bunch of (Disney) VHS tapes, and I have no videocassette player!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830123</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>RicktheBrick</author>
	<datestamp>1256127960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is definitely a bad way to use the internet.  I mean downloading several Gigabytes of data an hour.  Lets say one pays $20 for a dvd of a movie.  Now lets compare that to downloading the same movie 50 times.  50 X 8 Gigabytes per download equals 400 Gigabytes or 3,200 Giga bits.  Now lets give a fast internet speed of 5 Giga bits per second.  It would take 640 hours of internet time or more than 2 months at 10 hours per day.  There are not too many ISP that will charge less than $10 a month for their service.  Lets say one watches one movie a day or 30 per month.  30 X 8 Gigabytes is 240 Gigabytes a month which would be a huge burden for almost all ISP's.  Even if it is only 4 Gigabytes per movie, 120 Gigabytes a month is still way too big and if one goes to high definition we would have to have a internet speed in the giga bit range to handle it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is definitely a bad way to use the internet .
I mean downloading several Gigabytes of data an hour .
Lets say one pays $ 20 for a dvd of a movie .
Now lets compare that to downloading the same movie 50 times .
50 X 8 Gigabytes per download equals 400 Gigabytes or 3,200 Giga bits .
Now lets give a fast internet speed of 5 Giga bits per second .
It would take 640 hours of internet time or more than 2 months at 10 hours per day .
There are not too many ISP that will charge less than $ 10 a month for their service .
Lets say one watches one movie a day or 30 per month .
30 X 8 Gigabytes is 240 Gigabytes a month which would be a huge burden for almost all ISP 's .
Even if it is only 4 Gigabytes per movie , 120 Gigabytes a month is still way too big and if one goes to high definition we would have to have a internet speed in the giga bit range to handle it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is definitely a bad way to use the internet.
I mean downloading several Gigabytes of data an hour.
Lets say one pays $20 for a dvd of a movie.
Now lets compare that to downloading the same movie 50 times.
50 X 8 Gigabytes per download equals 400 Gigabytes or 3,200 Giga bits.
Now lets give a fast internet speed of 5 Giga bits per second.
It would take 640 hours of internet time or more than 2 months at 10 hours per day.
There are not too many ISP that will charge less than $10 a month for their service.
Lets say one watches one movie a day or 30 per month.
30 X 8 Gigabytes is 240 Gigabytes a month which would be a huge burden for almost all ISP's.
Even if it is only 4 Gigabytes per movie, 120 Gigabytes a month is still way too big and if one goes to high definition we would have to have a internet speed in the giga bit range to handle it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29836023</id>
	<title>Re:A Task for Sora</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1256230020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can a Keyblade be used to crack open this Keychest?</p></div><p>Sure, all you have to do is tap it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can a Keyblade be used to crack open this Keychest ? Sure , all you have to do is tap it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can a Keyblade be used to crack open this Keychest?Sure, all you have to do is tap it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827819</id>
	<title>A Task for Sora</title>
	<author>PocariSweat1991</author>
	<datestamp>1256115720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can a Keyblade be used to crack open this Keychest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can a Keyblade be used to crack open this Keychest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can a Keyblade be used to crack open this Keychest?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29887287</id>
	<title>I don't do DRM</title>
	<author>redmoss</author>
	<datestamp>1256673360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To all media companies:</p><p>I refuse to buy anything containing DRM. You can "innovate" all you want with DRM-laden products. But I won't spend any money on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To all media companies : I refuse to buy anything containing DRM .
You can " innovate " all you want with DRM-laden products .
But I wo n't spend any money on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all media companies:I refuse to buy anything containing DRM.
You can "innovate" all you want with DRM-laden products.
But I won't spend any money on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829769</id>
	<title>Re:here are a few reasons why we should</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256125260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or provide new advertising content not originally found in the obsolete version you saught to keep</p></div><p>You're the first one to note this possibility.  Imagine some future utopia (as defined by MPAA members) where your "accessed" movies contain just as many commercials as network TV.  Of course, that wouldn't happen right away, but slowly.  Remember when cable promised no more commercials?  And it's a certainty that Disney et. al. have already considered this - it's one of their favorite wet dreams.  Call it "mulu", the Seinfeldian transform of "movie hulu".<br>
<br>
- T</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or provide new advertising content not originally found in the obsolete version you saught to keepYou 're the first one to note this possibility .
Imagine some future utopia ( as defined by MPAA members ) where your " accessed " movies contain just as many commercials as network TV .
Of course , that would n't happen right away , but slowly .
Remember when cable promised no more commercials ?
And it 's a certainty that Disney et .
al. have already considered this - it 's one of their favorite wet dreams .
Call it " mulu " , the Seinfeldian transform of " movie hulu " .
- T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or provide new advertising content not originally found in the obsolete version you saught to keepYou're the first one to note this possibility.
Imagine some future utopia (as defined by MPAA members) where your "accessed" movies contain just as many commercials as network TV.
Of course, that wouldn't happen right away, but slowly.
Remember when cable promised no more commercials?
And it's a certainty that Disney et.
al. have already considered this - it's one of their favorite wet dreams.
Call it "mulu", the Seinfeldian transform of "movie hulu".
- T
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829847</id>
	<title>Re:Keychest vs. the Vault</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1256125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you just call it by its name: abusive price fixing. They threaten retail with sanctioning if they don't give back the DVDs when they say so. Then they destroy millions of perfectly good DVDs every year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you just call it by its name : abusive price fixing .
They threaten retail with sanctioning if they do n't give back the DVDs when they say so .
Then they destroy millions of perfectly good DVDs every year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you just call it by its name: abusive price fixing.
They threaten retail with sanctioning if they don't give back the DVDs when they say so.
Then they destroy millions of perfectly good DVDs every year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29836569</id>
	<title>Re:Remember that Disney owns ABC and ESPN</title>
	<author>hitnrunrambler</author>
	<datestamp>1256232540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geez, thx for ruining it for me..... I used to like History channel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geez , thx for ruining it for me..... I used to like History channel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geez, thx for ruining it for me..... I used to like History channel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830249</id>
	<title>Re:Can I avoid this simply by avoiding Disney?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256128800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hi def is meaningless considering their animation quality lately</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hi def is meaningless considering their animation quality lately</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hi def is meaningless considering their animation quality lately</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827915</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1256116140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Or what if Disney itself goes out of business?</i></p><p>Highly unlikely.</p><p><b>BUT</b> the point is valid.  <i>Everyone</i> that has ever hawked centralized-server-drm says that they could <i>never <b>possibly</b> </i> go out of business.  A few say they'll release a tool to unlock all the content if they go under.  To my knowledge, no tool has ever been released in such a case, and there are over a dozen large examples of such companies going out of business or simply shutting down their activation servers, turning purchased content into useless bits.</p><p>"There oughtta be a law".  That says DRM is only legal if the universal unlocker is kept in escrow somewhere (and kept updated) with terms to go public with it if they ch7,9,11,etc or simply shut off their servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or what if Disney itself goes out of business ? Highly unlikely.BUT the point is valid .
Everyone that has ever hawked centralized-server-drm says that they could never possibly go out of business .
A few say they 'll release a tool to unlock all the content if they go under .
To my knowledge , no tool has ever been released in such a case , and there are over a dozen large examples of such companies going out of business or simply shutting down their activation servers , turning purchased content into useless bits .
" There oughtta be a law " .
That says DRM is only legal if the universal unlocker is kept in escrow somewhere ( and kept updated ) with terms to go public with it if they ch7,9,11,etc or simply shut off their servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or what if Disney itself goes out of business?Highly unlikely.BUT the point is valid.
Everyone that has ever hawked centralized-server-drm says that they could never possibly  go out of business.
A few say they'll release a tool to unlock all the content if they go under.
To my knowledge, no tool has ever been released in such a case, and there are over a dozen large examples of such companies going out of business or simply shutting down their activation servers, turning purchased content into useless bits.
"There oughtta be a law".
That says DRM is only legal if the universal unlocker is kept in escrow somewhere (and kept updated) with terms to go public with it if they ch7,9,11,etc or simply shut off their servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827849</id>
	<title>Disney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256115780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>and nothing of value was lost.<br>
Really I do not care for the company, their products, and ABC which they own.<br>
This doesn't effect me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and nothing of value was lost .
Really I do not care for the company , their products , and ABC which they own .
This does n't effect me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and nothing of value was lost.
Really I do not care for the company, their products, and ABC which they own.
This doesn't effect me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29837051</id>
	<title>Re:Durable medium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256234460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Durable medium, my SFF (or the letters on the keys right next to them).</p></div><p>your ADD?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Durable medium , my SFF ( or the letters on the keys right next to them ) .your ADD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Durable medium, my SFF (or the letters on the keys right next to them).your ADD?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29840139</id>
	<title>Re:Out of Business?</title>
	<author>Dirk the Daring</author>
	<datestamp>1256205900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone can (and will) correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Plays for Sure" proof that a business doesn't have to go out of business for the company to stop supporting their media?</p><p>Even if we knew for sure that Disney would last forever, we don't know that they'll want/be able to support DRMed media they sold a long time ago...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone can ( and will ) correct me if I 'm wrong , but is n't " Plays for Sure " proof that a business does n't have to go out of business for the company to stop supporting their media ? Even if we knew for sure that Disney would last forever , we do n't know that they 'll want/be able to support DRMed media they sold a long time ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone can (and will) correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Plays for Sure" proof that a business doesn't have to go out of business for the company to stop supporting their media?Even if we knew for sure that Disney would last forever, we don't know that they'll want/be able to support DRMed media they sold a long time ago...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827915</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29833131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29836569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29840139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29832161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29837297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29835805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29833303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29835457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29834371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29832405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29837051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29833833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29836023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29834309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29841567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1941217_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829169
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828289
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29835805
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829743
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829619
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29832405
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29837297
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828841
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29836569
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831169
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829373
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828249
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29834371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29834309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29833131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29833303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29833833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828389
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830961
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29837051
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830621
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829999
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830805
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831493
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29835457
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830123
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830249
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29831117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29841567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29830035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29832161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29840139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29836023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29829029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1941217.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29827603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1941217.29828071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
