<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_2236235</id>
	<title>Amazon Patents Changing Authors' Words</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1256737740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"To exist or not to exist: that is the query. That's what the famous Hamlet soliloquy might look like if subjected to Amazon's newly-patented <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,610,382">System and Method for Marking Content</a>, which calls for 'programmatically substituting synonyms into distributed text content,' including 'books, short stories, product reviews, book or movie reviews, news articles, editorial articles, technical papers, scholastic papers, and so on' in an effort to  uniquely identify customers who redistribute material. In its description of the 'invention,' Amazon also touts the use of 'alternative misspellings for selected words' as a way to provide 'evidence of copyright infringement in a legal action.' After all, anti-piracy measures should trump kids' ability to spell correctly, shouldn't they?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " To exist or not to exist : that is the query .
That 's what the famous Hamlet soliloquy might look like if subjected to Amazon 's newly-patented System and Method for Marking Content , which calls for 'programmatically substituting synonyms into distributed text content, ' including 'books , short stories , product reviews , book or movie reviews , news articles , editorial articles , technical papers , scholastic papers , and so on ' in an effort to uniquely identify customers who redistribute material .
In its description of the 'invention, ' Amazon also touts the use of 'alternative misspellings for selected words ' as a way to provide 'evidence of copyright infringement in a legal action .
' After all , anti-piracy measures should trump kids ' ability to spell correctly , should n't they ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "To exist or not to exist: that is the query.
That's what the famous Hamlet soliloquy might look like if subjected to Amazon's newly-patented System and Method for Marking Content, which calls for 'programmatically substituting synonyms into distributed text content,' including 'books, short stories, product reviews, book or movie reviews, news articles, editorial articles, technical papers, scholastic papers, and so on' in an effort to  uniquely identify customers who redistribute material.
In its description of the 'invention,' Amazon also touts the use of 'alternative misspellings for selected words' as a way to provide 'evidence of copyright infringement in a legal action.
' After all, anti-piracy measures should trump kids' ability to spell correctly, shouldn't they?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912427</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256838720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; You could use this idea for just about anything that is digitally watermarked.</p><p>In fact, since what they are doing is basically watermarking, can't the patent for the "invention" be denied due to prior art?  As someone else pointed out, map makers have been doing this kind of thing for years...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You could use this idea for just about anything that is digitally watermarked.In fact , since what they are doing is basically watermarking , ca n't the patent for the " invention " be denied due to prior art ?
As someone else pointed out , map makers have been doing this kind of thing for years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; You could use this idea for just about anything that is digitally watermarked.In fact, since what they are doing is basically watermarking, can't the patent for the "invention" be denied due to prior art?
As someone else pointed out, map makers have been doing this kind of thing for years...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905705</id>
	<title>Exactly</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1256743380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This technique has been used to find spies for decades, if not centuries.
<br>
<br>
Ironically, something akin is even explained in literature... an old SF story, about a doctored "galactic encyclopedia" or some such (Saberhagen or Asimov?).
The story line there was that it was common practice for cartographers and encyclopedia/dictionary publishers purposely add minor bits of fiction to the reference work, with the idea that it won't do any harm, and if it gets copied, we'll know.
<br>
<br>
This reference work embellishing is not the same as rendering each copy as individually identifiable, but it still reeks of prior art.
<br>
<br>
BTW, I thought there was a term for this intentional "salting" of material to make it identifiable, but it escapes me right now. If you know the word, please educate us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This technique has been used to find spies for decades , if not centuries .
Ironically , something akin is even explained in literature... an old SF story , about a doctored " galactic encyclopedia " or some such ( Saberhagen or Asimov ? ) .
The story line there was that it was common practice for cartographers and encyclopedia/dictionary publishers purposely add minor bits of fiction to the reference work , with the idea that it wo n't do any harm , and if it gets copied , we 'll know .
This reference work embellishing is not the same as rendering each copy as individually identifiable , but it still reeks of prior art .
BTW , I thought there was a term for this intentional " salting " of material to make it identifiable , but it escapes me right now .
If you know the word , please educate us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This technique has been used to find spies for decades, if not centuries.
Ironically, something akin is even explained in literature... an old SF story, about a doctored "galactic encyclopedia" or some such (Saberhagen or Asimov?).
The story line there was that it was common practice for cartographers and encyclopedia/dictionary publishers purposely add minor bits of fiction to the reference work, with the idea that it won't do any harm, and if it gets copied, we'll know.
This reference work embellishing is not the same as rendering each copy as individually identifiable, but it still reeks of prior art.
BTW, I thought there was a term for this intentional "salting" of material to make it identifiable, but it escapes me right now.
If you know the word, please educate us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908321</id>
	<title>Re:The Authorized Amazon Version of The Bible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256818140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should bloody well hope that in 20 years from now theologians are extinct and nobody reads the Bible anymore...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should bloody well hope that in 20 years from now theologians are extinct and nobody reads the Bible anymore.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should bloody well hope that in 20 years from now theologians are extinct and nobody reads the Bible anymore...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905895</id>
	<title>not all that is written is true.</title>
	<author>kras</author>
	<datestamp>1256744640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>be it in stone or the internet.
good luck in finding out the liar and the truthsayer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>be it in stone or the internet .
good luck in finding out the liar and the truthsayer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be it in stone or the internet.
good luck in finding out the liar and the truthsayer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905881</id>
	<title>Thank Goodness!</title>
	<author>Seraphim\_72</author>
	<datestamp>1256744580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now Tom Sawyer wont have nigger in it. Unless you want it too. And Lolita will be 'just' 18. So you can watch it legally. Lets all change words to be more acceptable to the audience right? I mean 'What fools these Mortals be' is the same as "ppl r dumb' right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now Tom Sawyer wont have nigger in it .
Unless you want it too .
And Lolita will be 'just ' 18 .
So you can watch it legally .
Lets all change words to be more acceptable to the audience right ?
I mean 'What fools these Mortals be ' is the same as " ppl r dumb ' right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now Tom Sawyer wont have nigger in it.
Unless you want it too.
And Lolita will be 'just' 18.
So you can watch it legally.
Lets all change words to be more acceptable to the audience right?
I mean 'What fools these Mortals be' is the same as "ppl r dumb' right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906257</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1256747700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>add minor bits of fiction to the reference work</p></div></blockquote><p>I think this part captures what makes me uneasy about the whole thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>add minor bits of fiction to the reference workI think this part captures what makes me uneasy about the whole thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>add minor bits of fiction to the reference workI think this part captures what makes me uneasy about the whole thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906007</id>
	<title>eBooks? Thanks, but I'll stick to paper.</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1256745600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is yet one more reason not to get a Kindle or buy any eBooks from Amazon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is yet one more reason not to get a Kindle or buy any eBooks from Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is yet one more reason not to get a Kindle or buy any eBooks from Amazon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739</id>
	<title>It's not about the patent, it's about the lying</title>
	<author>localroger</author>
	<datestamp>1256743620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an heretical thing when mapmakers do it, lying (even trivially) and corrupting their craft because of the threat of being copied.  It should not be tolerated there nor should the practice claimed by this patent application be tolerated, not because the patent is bad but because the practice itself is an affront to all of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an heretical thing when mapmakers do it , lying ( even trivially ) and corrupting their craft because of the threat of being copied .
It should not be tolerated there nor should the practice claimed by this patent application be tolerated , not because the patent is bad but because the practice itself is an affront to all of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an heretical thing when mapmakers do it, lying (even trivially) and corrupting their craft because of the threat of being copied.
It should not be tolerated there nor should the practice claimed by this patent application be tolerated, not because the patent is bad but because the practice itself is an affront to all of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912169</id>
	<title>HoneyTraps</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1256837880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HoneyTraps, have long prior art, Jack Ryan re-invented it in one of Clancys books, but it is attributed to David Niven, then of SIS, not Hollywood c. 1942; but if some idiot at Amazon sells me the wrong book, or one with deliberate misspellings I will enjoy sueing his ass off for 'passing off, or goods not of merchantable quality'.<br><br>Why does not a day go by without some corporate jackass trying some stupidity like this, is this all MBA courses in the US teach?</htmltext>
<tokenext>HoneyTraps , have long prior art , Jack Ryan re-invented it in one of Clancys books , but it is attributed to David Niven , then of SIS , not Hollywood c. 1942 ; but if some idiot at Amazon sells me the wrong book , or one with deliberate misspellings I will enjoy sueing his ass off for 'passing off , or goods not of merchantable quality'.Why does not a day go by without some corporate jackass trying some stupidity like this , is this all MBA courses in the US teach ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HoneyTraps, have long prior art, Jack Ryan re-invented it in one of Clancys books, but it is attributed to David Niven, then of SIS, not Hollywood c. 1942; but if some idiot at Amazon sells me the wrong book, or one with deliberate misspellings I will enjoy sueing his ass off for 'passing off, or goods not of merchantable quality'.Why does not a day go by without some corporate jackass trying some stupidity like this, is this all MBA courses in the US teach?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29915869</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1256809080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this. Patents cover implementations, and not ideas.</p></div></blockquote><p>I guess you didn't read it either.  Claim 1 is one of a very common class of claims where the "implementation" is "use a computer to do 'idea'".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But no , they did not patent * doing * this , they patented the * way * that they do this .
Patents cover implementations , and not ideas.I guess you did n't read it either .
Claim 1 is one of a very common class of claims where the " implementation " is " use a computer to do 'idea ' " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this.
Patents cover implementations, and not ideas.I guess you didn't read it either.
Claim 1 is one of a very common class of claims where the "implementation" is "use a computer to do 'idea'".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909279</id>
	<title>Well this encourages piracy</title>
	<author>Atrox666</author>
	<datestamp>1256826660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I pay my own hard earned money I get a fucked up copy of the book I bought?<br>If the pirates cross reference out those errors then that means the pirates are handed a monopoly on the original work as the artist intended. Hand you opponent a monopoly on your own product. Genius plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I pay my own hard earned money I get a fucked up copy of the book I bought ? If the pirates cross reference out those errors then that means the pirates are handed a monopoly on the original work as the artist intended .
Hand you opponent a monopoly on your own product .
Genius plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I pay my own hard earned money I get a fucked up copy of the book I bought?If the pirates cross reference out those errors then that means the pirates are handed a monopoly on the original work as the artist intended.
Hand you opponent a monopoly on your own product.
Genius plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907565</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1256849220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hmmm. There appears to be something wrong with my history book.</p></div> </blockquote><p>History is written by winners, and thanks to Amazon, it's now easier than ever to rewrite it at will, for a small fee of course. I wonder if Orwell realized that his book would not only become an inspiration for politicians, but also a source of business opportunities?</p><p>Besides, it's not <em>your</em> history book, it's Amazons; you have simply been licensed it until such a time that Amazon sees fit to terminate the license. Surely you agree that it's a company's right to update its property as it sees fit?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
There appears to be something wrong with my history book .
History is written by winners , and thanks to Amazon , it 's now easier than ever to rewrite it at will , for a small fee of course .
I wonder if Orwell realized that his book would not only become an inspiration for politicians , but also a source of business opportunities ? Besides , it 's not your history book , it 's Amazons ; you have simply been licensed it until such a time that Amazon sees fit to terminate the license .
Surely you agree that it 's a company 's right to update its property as it sees fit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
There appears to be something wrong with my history book.
History is written by winners, and thanks to Amazon, it's now easier than ever to rewrite it at will, for a small fee of course.
I wonder if Orwell realized that his book would not only become an inspiration for politicians, but also a source of business opportunities?Besides, it's not your history book, it's Amazons; you have simply been licensed it until such a time that Amazon sees fit to terminate the license.
Surely you agree that it's a company's right to update its property as it sees fit?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908989</id>
	<title>Re:It's not about the patent, it's about the lying</title>
	<author>instance</author>
	<datestamp>1256825160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quick, file a patent on "System and method for correcting multiple variants in content" before someone else does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick , file a patent on " System and method for correcting multiple variants in content " before someone else does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick, file a patent on "System and method for correcting multiple variants in content" before someone else does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29917267</id>
	<title>Tom Clancy deserves the Patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256813940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure this had to be mentioned more than once in the comments above.... But isn't it actually Tom Clancy who should have the patent before Amazon, as he wrote up the same idea in Patriot Games?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure this had to be mentioned more than once in the comments above.... But is n't it actually Tom Clancy who should have the patent before Amazon , as he wrote up the same idea in Patriot Games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure this had to be mentioned more than once in the comments above.... But isn't it actually Tom Clancy who should have the patent before Amazon, as he wrote up the same idea in Patriot Games?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29917953</id>
	<title>Fark E-Books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256817180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this just another nail in the coffin of e-books &amp; e-book readers?  I've tried the Kindle and I've tried a few other media for reading novel-length works.  None of them come close to the feel of reading print on paper.  E-book readers are uncomfortable to hold, easy to break, and lack nearly all the conveniences of a book while returning hardly any of their own.  About the only advantage I can see is multiple volumes on the same reader, but that's just a cue for the DRM weenies to come out of the woodwork.</p><p>Books are just one of those things that really don't need improving on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this just another nail in the coffin of e-books &amp; e-book readers ?
I 've tried the Kindle and I 've tried a few other media for reading novel-length works .
None of them come close to the feel of reading print on paper .
E-book readers are uncomfortable to hold , easy to break , and lack nearly all the conveniences of a book while returning hardly any of their own .
About the only advantage I can see is multiple volumes on the same reader , but that 's just a cue for the DRM weenies to come out of the woodwork.Books are just one of those things that really do n't need improving on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this just another nail in the coffin of e-books &amp; e-book readers?
I've tried the Kindle and I've tried a few other media for reading novel-length works.
None of them come close to the feel of reading print on paper.
E-book readers are uncomfortable to hold, easy to break, and lack nearly all the conveniences of a book while returning hardly any of their own.
About the only advantage I can see is multiple volumes on the same reader, but that's just a cue for the DRM weenies to come out of the woodwork.Books are just one of those things that really don't need improving on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29916561</id>
	<title>Re:They stole my idea!</title>
	<author>GrantRobertson</author>
	<datestamp>1256811300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I searched Usenet for my name and only got 112 entries. I know for a fact that I wrote thousands of messages in Usenet over the years. So it may be possible that I posted this idea and it is not turning up in the search. If anyone else wants to give it a go to defeat this patent be my guest.</p><p>And yes, you will find some interesting posts that would be embarrassing if I gave a damn. So don't bother with the cracks, I won't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I searched Usenet for my name and only got 112 entries .
I know for a fact that I wrote thousands of messages in Usenet over the years .
So it may be possible that I posted this idea and it is not turning up in the search .
If anyone else wants to give it a go to defeat this patent be my guest.And yes , you will find some interesting posts that would be embarrassing if I gave a damn .
So do n't bother with the cracks , I wo n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I searched Usenet for my name and only got 112 entries.
I know for a fact that I wrote thousands of messages in Usenet over the years.
So it may be possible that I posted this idea and it is not turning up in the search.
If anyone else wants to give it a go to defeat this patent be my guest.And yes, you will find some interesting posts that would be embarrassing if I gave a damn.
So don't bother with the cracks, I won't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29916159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906309</id>
	<title>diff</title>
	<author>KamuZ</author>
	<datestamp>1256748240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone buys 2 books (same), should be different right?<br>So make diff on them, mix some words from one and the other randomly.</p><p>Then you have a new copy.<br>People always find a way. Just see in YouTube all the people using cams to show you a video so they don't match the video or audio recognition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone buys 2 books ( same ) , should be different right ? So make diff on them , mix some words from one and the other randomly.Then you have a new copy.People always find a way .
Just see in YouTube all the people using cams to show you a video so they do n't match the video or audio recognition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone buys 2 books (same), should be different right?So make diff on them, mix some words from one and the other randomly.Then you have a new copy.People always find a way.
Just see in YouTube all the people using cams to show you a video so they don't match the video or audio recognition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29919929</id>
	<title>Is no one as outraged as I am?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have got to be kidding me? I don't understand why no one is as outraged as I am about this. You don't rewrite the past simply because it is "inconvenient" or not "politically correct" or to protect corporate greed. Leave an authors original words alone!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have got to be kidding me ?
I do n't understand why no one is as outraged as I am about this .
You do n't rewrite the past simply because it is " inconvenient " or not " politically correct " or to protect corporate greed .
Leave an authors original words alone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have got to be kidding me?
I don't understand why no one is as outraged as I am about this.
You don't rewrite the past simply because it is "inconvenient" or not "politically correct" or to protect corporate greed.
Leave an authors original words alone!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>pvera</author>
	<datestamp>1256746620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes. And that is a variation of the classic canary trap (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary\_trap" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary\_trap</a> [wikipedia.org]): copies of classified documents that are not 100\% identical. When the leaks surface, you can trace the original recipient of the compromised copy.

I like the thing with the maps because it is the kind of thing that makes the violator look like a complete idiot, and it's impossible to defend in court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
And that is a variation of the classic canary trap ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary \ _trap [ wikipedia.org ] ) : copies of classified documents that are not 100 \ % identical .
When the leaks surface , you can trace the original recipient of the compromised copy .
I like the thing with the maps because it is the kind of thing that makes the violator look like a complete idiot , and it 's impossible to defend in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
And that is a variation of the classic canary trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary\_trap [wikipedia.org]): copies of classified documents that are not 100\% identical.
When the leaks surface, you can trace the original recipient of the compromised copy.
I like the thing with the maps because it is the kind of thing that makes the violator look like a complete idiot, and it's impossible to defend in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907207</id>
	<title>This is not even remotely a "new invention"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been known for years...decades...that the way you catch an information leaker is to send out an important memo with the wording in the key sections varied slightly in each copy.  Then wait for it to appear in the New York Times (or wherever) and you instantly know whose copy was leaked.</p><p>Why is it a new invention just because a computer does it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been known for years...decades...that the way you catch an information leaker is to send out an important memo with the wording in the key sections varied slightly in each copy .
Then wait for it to appear in the New York Times ( or wherever ) and you instantly know whose copy was leaked.Why is it a new invention just because a computer does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been known for years...decades...that the way you catch an information leaker is to send out an important memo with the wording in the key sections varied slightly in each copy.
Then wait for it to appear in the New York Times (or wherever) and you instantly know whose copy was leaked.Why is it a new invention just because a computer does it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909045</id>
	<title>What a terrible idea</title>
	<author>sheph</author>
	<datestamp>1256825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if they ever stopped to consider that writers choose what words they use to convey a concept rather carefully, and that they might not have an overwhelming appreciation for a scheme such as this.  Is it really so important to catch someone redistributing that you have to stomp all over the integrity of the work itself?  If it diminishes the value of the work then doesn't that work become worth less?  These are questions that they ought to be asking themselves before venturing into such an obsene effort.  I certainly have no interest in reading a book with this scheme applied to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they ever stopped to consider that writers choose what words they use to convey a concept rather carefully , and that they might not have an overwhelming appreciation for a scheme such as this .
Is it really so important to catch someone redistributing that you have to stomp all over the integrity of the work itself ?
If it diminishes the value of the work then does n't that work become worth less ?
These are questions that they ought to be asking themselves before venturing into such an obsene effort .
I certainly have no interest in reading a book with this scheme applied to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they ever stopped to consider that writers choose what words they use to convey a concept rather carefully, and that they might not have an overwhelming appreciation for a scheme such as this.
Is it really so important to catch someone redistributing that you have to stomp all over the integrity of the work itself?
If it diminishes the value of the work then doesn't that work become worth less?
These are questions that they ought to be asking themselves before venturing into such an obsene effort.
I certainly have no interest in reading a book with this scheme applied to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905755</id>
	<title>Moral rights</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1256743740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada and some other countries have "moral rights" which belong to the author.</p><p>Changing words without his permission could violate these rights.</p><p>In some countries these rights are inalienable and non-assignable.  This means the author can't be ordered to waive them by the publisher or other copyright-holder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada and some other countries have " moral rights " which belong to the author.Changing words without his permission could violate these rights.In some countries these rights are inalienable and non-assignable .
This means the author ca n't be ordered to waive them by the publisher or other copyright-holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada and some other countries have "moral rights" which belong to the author.Changing words without his permission could violate these rights.In some countries these rights are inalienable and non-assignable.
This means the author can't be ordered to waive them by the publisher or other copyright-holder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907807</id>
	<title>Prior art?</title>
	<author>peterwayner</author>
	<datestamp>1256810160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't bothered to read the patent application, but there's a brief description of this in my books <i> Disappearing Cryptography </i> and <i> Digital Copyright Protection </i>. In addition, Mikhail Atallah's group at Purdue has explored many similar ideas:</p><p>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/faculty/mja/" title="purdue.edu">http://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/faculty/mja/</a> [purdue.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't bothered to read the patent application , but there 's a brief description of this in my books Disappearing Cryptography and Digital Copyright Protection .
In addition , Mikhail Atallah 's group at Purdue has explored many similar ideas :   http : //www.cs.purdue.edu/people/faculty/mja/ [ purdue.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't bothered to read the patent application, but there's a brief description of this in my books  Disappearing Cryptography  and  Digital Copyright Protection .
In addition, Mikhail Atallah's group at Purdue has explored many similar ideas:
  http://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/faculty/mja/ [purdue.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905887</id>
	<title>I thought of it first</title>
	<author>lseltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1256744580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was doing this with Cliff Notes 35 years ago</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was doing this with Cliff Notes 35 years ago</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was doing this with Cliff Notes 35 years ago</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909169</id>
	<title>Will this change the meaning?</title>
	<author>Name Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256826060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many words have multiple meanings. Will Amazon pick the synonym that has a compatible meaning? Or will they change the work totally?
<p>
Also what if a word they pick is also the name of an item? This would break the work they modified.
</p><p>
An example works for both: "Grill" do they mean to cook or to interrogate? And what if it is a grill as in the item to cook with?
</p><p>
And as for changing the spelling of words, well what if it becomes another word? Or maybe it gets changed into a name used in the book - this would cause confusion. And what about people learning the wrong spelling for words?
</p><p>
Of course there is also the issue of possibly violating the authors copyright by changing the work in question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many words have multiple meanings .
Will Amazon pick the synonym that has a compatible meaning ?
Or will they change the work totally ?
Also what if a word they pick is also the name of an item ?
This would break the work they modified .
An example works for both : " Grill " do they mean to cook or to interrogate ?
And what if it is a grill as in the item to cook with ?
And as for changing the spelling of words , well what if it becomes another word ?
Or maybe it gets changed into a name used in the book - this would cause confusion .
And what about people learning the wrong spelling for words ?
Of course there is also the issue of possibly violating the authors copyright by changing the work in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many words have multiple meanings.
Will Amazon pick the synonym that has a compatible meaning?
Or will they change the work totally?
Also what if a word they pick is also the name of an item?
This would break the work they modified.
An example works for both: "Grill" do they mean to cook or to interrogate?
And what if it is a grill as in the item to cook with?
And as for changing the spelling of words, well what if it becomes another word?
Or maybe it gets changed into a name used in the book - this would cause confusion.
And what about people learning the wrong spelling for words?
Of course there is also the issue of possibly violating the authors copyright by changing the work in question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912495</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Joe Mucchiello</author>
	<datestamp>1256838900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Aww come on. This is the smuckin fartest invention ever!</p></div></blockquote><p>Did you mean "This is the copulatingly most brilliant invention ever"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aww come on .
This is the smuckin fartest invention ever ! Did you mean " This is the copulatingly most brilliant invention ever " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aww come on.
This is the smuckin fartest invention ever!Did you mean "This is the copulatingly most brilliant invention ever"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29913459</id>
	<title>Your idea won't work if ..</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1256842860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your idea won't work if the falsified section of the work always are falsified with 50:50 chance.<br>On the other, you would be able to put together fake marks easily.<br>However, a countermeasure to fake marks is to only use a subset of the marks, for example those that match a number produced by an algorithm or have a certain checksum or hash with certain properties.<br>(I hereby dyspatent that idea by publishing it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>The patent by Amazon at the core is not a new idea, it is just mixing A and B and patenting that feels somewhat silly. There's a guy a round somewhere who works with a matrix method to find such new inventions. I would love to see his website, but I forgot his name<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your idea wo n't work if the falsified section of the work always are falsified with 50 : 50 chance.On the other , you would be able to put together fake marks easily.However , a countermeasure to fake marks is to only use a subset of the marks , for example those that match a number produced by an algorithm or have a certain checksum or hash with certain properties .
( I hereby dyspatent that idea by publishing it ; - ) The patent by Amazon at the core is not a new idea , it is just mixing A and B and patenting that feels somewhat silly .
There 's a guy a round somewhere who works with a matrix method to find such new inventions .
I would love to see his website , but I forgot his name . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your idea won't work if the falsified section of the work always are falsified with 50:50 chance.On the other, you would be able to put together fake marks easily.However, a countermeasure to fake marks is to only use a subset of the marks, for example those that match a number produced by an algorithm or have a certain checksum or hash with certain properties.
(I hereby dyspatent that idea by publishing it ;-)The patent by Amazon at the core is not a new idea, it is just mixing A and B and patenting that feels somewhat silly.
There's a guy a round somewhere who works with a matrix method to find such new inventions.
I would love to see his website, but I forgot his name ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909325</id>
	<title>Re:Moral rights</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1256826900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, you should really try mixing the words "moral" "business" and "law"...I think the resulting explosion would be quite interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , you should really try mixing the words " moral " " business " and " law " ...I think the resulting explosion would be quite interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, you should really try mixing the words "moral" "business" and "law"...I think the resulting explosion would be quite interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905985</id>
	<title>Cartographers already do this...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1256745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that is, introduce deliberate errors into their maps to detect copyright violations. <a href="http://www.whiterocklake.org/?p=122" title="whiterocklake.org">Here's an example</a> [whiterocklake.org] of an island that was simply "dropped" in the middle of a lake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that is , introduce deliberate errors into their maps to detect copyright violations .
Here 's an example [ whiterocklake.org ] of an island that was simply " dropped " in the middle of a lake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that is, introduce deliberate errors into their maps to detect copyright violations.
Here's an example [whiterocklake.org] of an island that was simply "dropped" in the middle of a lake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907895</id>
	<title>Simple solution!</title>
	<author>KingSkippus</author>
	<datestamp>1256811720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that there's a pretty easy way to defeat this.  Use the technology against itself.</p><p>If you ever want to distribute something, make your own minor spelling variations and substitute your own synonyms into the original, thus further altering the altered work.  If someone sues you, just point out the fact that their copy "proving" you're guilty doesn't even match the copy of the work that was distributed.</p><p>You could use this idea for just about anything that is digitally watermarked.  Don't want that MP3 traced?  Introduce your own small, imperceptible variations into the waveform.  Don't want your printer tracing you through microdots on your hardcopies?  Write a driver that adds its own microdots, and lots of 'em.  And so on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that there 's a pretty easy way to defeat this .
Use the technology against itself.If you ever want to distribute something , make your own minor spelling variations and substitute your own synonyms into the original , thus further altering the altered work .
If someone sues you , just point out the fact that their copy " proving " you 're guilty does n't even match the copy of the work that was distributed.You could use this idea for just about anything that is digitally watermarked .
Do n't want that MP3 traced ?
Introduce your own small , imperceptible variations into the waveform .
Do n't want your printer tracing you through microdots on your hardcopies ?
Write a driver that adds its own microdots , and lots of 'em .
And so on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that there's a pretty easy way to defeat this.
Use the technology against itself.If you ever want to distribute something, make your own minor spelling variations and substitute your own synonyms into the original, thus further altering the altered work.
If someone sues you, just point out the fact that their copy "proving" you're guilty doesn't even match the copy of the work that was distributed.You could use this idea for just about anything that is digitally watermarked.
Don't want that MP3 traced?
Introduce your own small, imperceptible variations into the waveform.
Don't want your printer tracing you through microdots on your hardcopies?
Write a driver that adds its own microdots, and lots of 'em.
And so on...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908189</id>
	<title>Computers and "synonyms"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256816520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three words: "Phone me Ishmael."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three words : " Phone me Ishmael .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three words: "Phone me Ishmael.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907811</id>
	<title>Suggestions....</title>
	<author>Loki\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1256810160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Take the original, convert to PDF, OCR back to text.  Voila... enough errors to make it untraceable.</p><p>2) Hack into the head of Amazon's computer and download HIS copy of a book.  Now release via torrent and wait for the witchhunt to start.  He is obviously guilty because it is HIS copy that was pirated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Take the original , convert to PDF , OCR back to text .
Voila... enough errors to make it untraceable.2 ) Hack into the head of Amazon 's computer and download HIS copy of a book .
Now release via torrent and wait for the witchhunt to start .
He is obviously guilty because it is HIS copy that was pirated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Take the original, convert to PDF, OCR back to text.
Voila... enough errors to make it untraceable.2) Hack into the head of Amazon's computer and download HIS copy of a book.
Now release via torrent and wait for the witchhunt to start.
He is obviously guilty because it is HIS copy that was pirated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906243</id>
	<title>Uhm copyright violation through derivative work</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256747640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless they have specific permission from the owner of the copyright work for any such modification. Any operation such as this would be an unauthorized derivative work and be in violation of the original copyright. The variations would be derivative works, not works in their own rights. Their creation would have to be authorized by the owner of the original copyright material.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative\_work" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative\_work</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they have specific permission from the owner of the copyright work for any such modification .
Any operation such as this would be an unauthorized derivative work and be in violation of the original copyright .
The variations would be derivative works , not works in their own rights .
Their creation would have to be authorized by the owner of the original copyright material.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative \ _work [ wikipedia.org ] Subject to sections 107 through 122 , the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following : ( 1 ) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies... ; ( 2 ) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work ; ( 3 ) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership , or by rental , lease , or lending... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they have specific permission from the owner of the copyright work for any such modification.
Any operation such as this would be an unauthorized derivative work and be in violation of the original copyright.
The variations would be derivative works, not works in their own rights.
Their creation would have to be authorized by the owner of the original copyright material.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative\_work [wikipedia.org]Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907153</id>
	<title>Re:Prior art</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1256757660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes... but Amazon is doing it On The Internet.</p><p>Adding "On The Internet" to an idea automatically invalidates all prior art, everybody knows that.</p><p>Back in the 80s we used to change random tabs to spaces and add spaces to the end of lines to 'fingerprint' source code. Yes it could have been filtered using 'pp', if you knew about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes... but Amazon is doing it On The Internet.Adding " On The Internet " to an idea automatically invalidates all prior art , everybody knows that.Back in the 80s we used to change random tabs to spaces and add spaces to the end of lines to 'fingerprint ' source code .
Yes it could have been filtered using 'pp ' , if you knew about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes... but Amazon is doing it On The Internet.Adding "On The Internet" to an idea automatically invalidates all prior art, everybody knows that.Back in the 80s we used to change random tabs to spaces and add spaces to the end of lines to 'fingerprint' source code.
Yes it could have been filtered using 'pp', if you knew about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908889</id>
	<title>an idea</title>
	<author>Mantorp</author>
	<datestamp>1256824440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fix all the instances of 'should of' and 'could of' in the Great Gatsby</htmltext>
<tokenext>fix all the instances of 'should of ' and 'could of ' in the Great Gatsby</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fix all the instances of 'should of' and 'could of' in the Great Gatsby</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912501</id>
	<title>M$ should fear this patent</title>
	<author>ntime60</author>
	<datestamp>1256838960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows M$ has been caught more than once copying functionality of other OSs and suspected many more times.  You think they might actually create something now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows M $ has been caught more than once copying functionality of other OSs and suspected many more times .
You think they might actually create something now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows M$ has been caught more than once copying functionality of other OSs and suspected many more times.
You think they might actually create something now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909027</id>
	<title>Why not just modify whitespace?</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1256825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Develop a robust, redundant code around substituting two spaces for one after a period/full stop, or adding spaces at the end of a paragraph.  Or occasionally substitute em- and en-spaces.  It accomplishes the goal, and it doesn't vandalize the source.</p><p>I certainly <i>hope</i> there's more than enough backlash to kill the idea of changing words.  Otherwise, after ten or twenty more years of natural-language understanding research, we're going to see them trying to do the same thing with <i>plots</i>, or character development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Develop a robust , redundant code around substituting two spaces for one after a period/full stop , or adding spaces at the end of a paragraph .
Or occasionally substitute em- and en-spaces .
It accomplishes the goal , and it does n't vandalize the source.I certainly hope there 's more than enough backlash to kill the idea of changing words .
Otherwise , after ten or twenty more years of natural-language understanding research , we 're going to see them trying to do the same thing with plots , or character development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Develop a robust, redundant code around substituting two spaces for one after a period/full stop, or adding spaces at the end of a paragraph.
Or occasionally substitute em- and en-spaces.
It accomplishes the goal, and it doesn't vandalize the source.I certainly hope there's more than enough backlash to kill the idea of changing words.
Otherwise, after ten or twenty more years of natural-language understanding research, we're going to see them trying to do the same thing with plots, or character development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027</id>
	<title>Not a Wise Practice</title>
	<author>Frightened\_Turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1256745900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, there is already pre-existing examples of this practice. Indeed, Tom Clancy described this very technique in one of his novels and called it, "<i>The Smoking Word Processor</i>."</p><p>Second, as an author, I go through quite an effort to ensure that the spelling and grammar are correct throughout any work that I created. To have Amazon completely throw away my efforts and ruin my work would really anger me. This might encourage me to inhibit Amazon from selling any of my work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , there is already pre-existing examples of this practice .
Indeed , Tom Clancy described this very technique in one of his novels and called it , " The Smoking Word Processor .
" Second , as an author , I go through quite an effort to ensure that the spelling and grammar are correct throughout any work that I created .
To have Amazon completely throw away my efforts and ruin my work would really anger me .
This might encourage me to inhibit Amazon from selling any of my work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, there is already pre-existing examples of this practice.
Indeed, Tom Clancy described this very technique in one of his novels and called it, "The Smoking Word Processor.
"Second, as an author, I go through quite an effort to ensure that the spelling and grammar are correct throughout any work that I created.
To have Amazon completely throw away my efforts and ruin my work would really anger me.
This might encourage me to inhibit Amazon from selling any of my work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905567</id>
	<title>Prior art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256742480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My girlfriend writes government proposals for armored vehicles.  A lot of the stuff they deal with is top secret, and the stuff that isn't is still subject to corporate spying.  The way they find leaks is by doing exactly this.<br> <br>

Additionally if people know Amazon is doing this, you just have to misspell some other words, change a few more or run a spell check.  If people know, it doesn't work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My girlfriend writes government proposals for armored vehicles .
A lot of the stuff they deal with is top secret , and the stuff that is n't is still subject to corporate spying .
The way they find leaks is by doing exactly this .
Additionally if people know Amazon is doing this , you just have to misspell some other words , change a few more or run a spell check .
If people know , it does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My girlfriend writes government proposals for armored vehicles.
A lot of the stuff they deal with is top secret, and the stuff that isn't is still subject to corporate spying.
The way they find leaks is by doing exactly this.
Additionally if people know Amazon is doing this, you just have to misspell some other words, change a few more or run a spell check.
If people know, it doesn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909593</id>
	<title>It's also about art</title>
	<author>OhHellWithIt</author>
	<datestamp>1256828220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is something that should really tick off writers. An author puts a lot of work into choosing the right words for what he wants to say and wrestles with his editors over word choices until the work is finally in print (or published, by whatever means). Now Amazon is going to take a damned <em>computer</em> and <em>change</em> the words willy-nilly? Please!
</p><p>Of course, this may someday lead to an ironic situation in which someone purchases a digital copy of a book or something, and one of the most oft-quoted sentences in the work has been changed, so that the reader is cheated of finally reading the sentence in context. I can see it now, the famed &quot;Out, damned spot! out, I say!&quot; from MacBeth, changed to &quot;Out, wretched stain! out, I say!&quot; Or, perhaps worse, the quote with the changed word(s) becomes more widely known.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something that should really tick off writers .
An author puts a lot of work into choosing the right words for what he wants to say and wrestles with his editors over word choices until the work is finally in print ( or published , by whatever means ) .
Now Amazon is going to take a damned computer and change the words willy-nilly ?
Please ! Of course , this may someday lead to an ironic situation in which someone purchases a digital copy of a book or something , and one of the most oft-quoted sentences in the work has been changed , so that the reader is cheated of finally reading the sentence in context .
I can see it now , the famed " Out , damned spot !
out , I say !
" from MacBeth , changed to " Out , wretched stain !
out , I say !
" Or , perhaps worse , the quote with the changed word ( s ) becomes more widely known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something that should really tick off writers.
An author puts a lot of work into choosing the right words for what he wants to say and wrestles with his editors over word choices until the work is finally in print (or published, by whatever means).
Now Amazon is going to take a damned computer and change the words willy-nilly?
Please!
Of course, this may someday lead to an ironic situation in which someone purchases a digital copy of a book or something, and one of the most oft-quoted sentences in the work has been changed, so that the reader is cheated of finally reading the sentence in context.
I can see it now, the famed "Out, damned spot!
out, I say!
" from MacBeth, changed to "Out, wretched stain!
out, I say!
" Or, perhaps worse, the quote with the changed word(s) becomes more widely known.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29919655</id>
	<title>Contributed to the public domain:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A method for thwarting a brain-dead scheme for unique "watermarking" of text, consisting of:</p><p>- A means to download multiple copies of the same text, each with unique "watermarks",<br>- A means to compare the multiple copies against each other to determine which differences exist,<br>- A means to determine which of the different expressions is most likely to not be part of such a "watermark", including but not limited to checking for misspelled words, checking for inappropriate use of homophones, and "majority vote" of the multiple copies of the text,<br>- A means to obscure the watermark, including but not limited to replacement of the corrupted text and randomly shuffling the known "watermark" corruptions between copies to alter the "watermark's" signature.</p><p>An alternate means consisting of using DMCA takedown notices to stop distribution of corrupt copies of copyrighted works</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A method for thwarting a brain-dead scheme for unique " watermarking " of text , consisting of : - A means to download multiple copies of the same text , each with unique " watermarks " ,- A means to compare the multiple copies against each other to determine which differences exist,- A means to determine which of the different expressions is most likely to not be part of such a " watermark " , including but not limited to checking for misspelled words , checking for inappropriate use of homophones , and " majority vote " of the multiple copies of the text,- A means to obscure the watermark , including but not limited to replacement of the corrupted text and randomly shuffling the known " watermark " corruptions between copies to alter the " watermark 's " signature.An alternate means consisting of using DMCA takedown notices to stop distribution of corrupt copies of copyrighted works</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A method for thwarting a brain-dead scheme for unique "watermarking" of text, consisting of:- A means to download multiple copies of the same text, each with unique "watermarks",- A means to compare the multiple copies against each other to determine which differences exist,- A means to determine which of the different expressions is most likely to not be part of such a "watermark", including but not limited to checking for misspelled words, checking for inappropriate use of homophones, and "majority vote" of the multiple copies of the text,- A means to obscure the watermark, including but not limited to replacement of the corrupted text and randomly shuffling the known "watermark" corruptions between copies to alter the "watermark's" signature.An alternate means consisting of using DMCA takedown notices to stop distribution of corrupt copies of copyrighted works</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907753</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1256809260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once designed an algorithm which achieved extremely high compression using a pre-computed hash table (the elements were optimally assigned using a bipartite graph matching algorithm, with an open chain of length three, to a fill rate over 90\%).</p><p>The cool thing about the hash table in our application is that it generated false positives.  We enumerated all the false positives and added additional data to suppress the ones that would actively interfere with the algorithm, leaving all the others intact.  The hash location was tied to a hardware dongle.  You couldn't enumerate the table (by an easy method) because the false positives were an exponentially growing set (over phrase length).  And you couldn't re-purpose the table in its existing form without leaving all the canaries intact, which would have been a dead giveaway had they shown up in anyone else's program.</p><p>It was a nice confluence of abstract properties, applicable only to a very specific kind of data and algorithm.  It wasn't quite a perfect fit, since the exponential growth of the phantom set didn't kick into high gear until past the longest phrase length where we had enough data to matter.  But the attacker wouldn't have immediately known this, and would have been frustrated by a few surprises long before arriving at that point.  If the hardware dongle was not installed, you got a warning message, but nothing on the algorithm code path was modified.  It just continued to use white noise from where the dongle was supposed to be, which yielded poor hash locations relative to the desired function.  Some guy in China thought he cracked it because he removed the warning message, but he didn't check to see if the program still worked.</p><p>By the time you've been clever enough to warrant a patent, the applicability is too narrow to make it worth doing so.  At least I managed an original combination of well known ideas, rather than rehashing Canary techniques that have been widely used in the intelligence community (I would bet a spare limb) back to the origin of high performance printers, if not earlier.</p><p>It's slightly easier to win a patent if you've never read a book before.  That really amps up the novelty of invention factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once designed an algorithm which achieved extremely high compression using a pre-computed hash table ( the elements were optimally assigned using a bipartite graph matching algorithm , with an open chain of length three , to a fill rate over 90 \ % ) .The cool thing about the hash table in our application is that it generated false positives .
We enumerated all the false positives and added additional data to suppress the ones that would actively interfere with the algorithm , leaving all the others intact .
The hash location was tied to a hardware dongle .
You could n't enumerate the table ( by an easy method ) because the false positives were an exponentially growing set ( over phrase length ) .
And you could n't re-purpose the table in its existing form without leaving all the canaries intact , which would have been a dead giveaway had they shown up in anyone else 's program.It was a nice confluence of abstract properties , applicable only to a very specific kind of data and algorithm .
It was n't quite a perfect fit , since the exponential growth of the phantom set did n't kick into high gear until past the longest phrase length where we had enough data to matter .
But the attacker would n't have immediately known this , and would have been frustrated by a few surprises long before arriving at that point .
If the hardware dongle was not installed , you got a warning message , but nothing on the algorithm code path was modified .
It just continued to use white noise from where the dongle was supposed to be , which yielded poor hash locations relative to the desired function .
Some guy in China thought he cracked it because he removed the warning message , but he did n't check to see if the program still worked.By the time you 've been clever enough to warrant a patent , the applicability is too narrow to make it worth doing so .
At least I managed an original combination of well known ideas , rather than rehashing Canary techniques that have been widely used in the intelligence community ( I would bet a spare limb ) back to the origin of high performance printers , if not earlier.It 's slightly easier to win a patent if you 've never read a book before .
That really amps up the novelty of invention factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once designed an algorithm which achieved extremely high compression using a pre-computed hash table (the elements were optimally assigned using a bipartite graph matching algorithm, with an open chain of length three, to a fill rate over 90\%).The cool thing about the hash table in our application is that it generated false positives.
We enumerated all the false positives and added additional data to suppress the ones that would actively interfere with the algorithm, leaving all the others intact.
The hash location was tied to a hardware dongle.
You couldn't enumerate the table (by an easy method) because the false positives were an exponentially growing set (over phrase length).
And you couldn't re-purpose the table in its existing form without leaving all the canaries intact, which would have been a dead giveaway had they shown up in anyone else's program.It was a nice confluence of abstract properties, applicable only to a very specific kind of data and algorithm.
It wasn't quite a perfect fit, since the exponential growth of the phantom set didn't kick into high gear until past the longest phrase length where we had enough data to matter.
But the attacker wouldn't have immediately known this, and would have been frustrated by a few surprises long before arriving at that point.
If the hardware dongle was not installed, you got a warning message, but nothing on the algorithm code path was modified.
It just continued to use white noise from where the dongle was supposed to be, which yielded poor hash locations relative to the desired function.
Some guy in China thought he cracked it because he removed the warning message, but he didn't check to see if the program still worked.By the time you've been clever enough to warrant a patent, the applicability is too narrow to make it worth doing so.
At least I managed an original combination of well known ideas, rather than rehashing Canary techniques that have been widely used in the intelligence community (I would bet a spare limb) back to the origin of high performance printers, if not earlier.It's slightly easier to win a patent if you've never read a book before.
That really amps up the novelty of invention factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906285</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm copyright violation through derivative work</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1256748000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but this is likely happening on the Internet, a pretty much law-free, consequences free zone.  Nobody on the Internet pays much attention to copyright, so it is only realistic that corporations are going to start taking advantage of this.</p><p>If Russian hackers can steal your bank account and nobody can do much about it, expect to see Sony stealing your music compositions and selling them on the Internet soon.  If college kids can download movies, expect Netflix to start downloading them and offering them for rental.  Should it surprise anyone that Amazon might be doing something with books that might be questionable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but this is likely happening on the Internet , a pretty much law-free , consequences free zone .
Nobody on the Internet pays much attention to copyright , so it is only realistic that corporations are going to start taking advantage of this.If Russian hackers can steal your bank account and nobody can do much about it , expect to see Sony stealing your music compositions and selling them on the Internet soon .
If college kids can download movies , expect Netflix to start downloading them and offering them for rental .
Should it surprise anyone that Amazon might be doing something with books that might be questionable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but this is likely happening on the Internet, a pretty much law-free, consequences free zone.
Nobody on the Internet pays much attention to copyright, so it is only realistic that corporations are going to start taking advantage of this.If Russian hackers can steal your bank account and nobody can do much about it, expect to see Sony stealing your music compositions and selling them on the Internet soon.
If college kids can download movies, expect Netflix to start downloading them and offering them for rental.
Should it surprise anyone that Amazon might be doing something with books that might be questionable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907687</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256808120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what if you drew a map, wanted to place the names of a bunch of roads on there because, well, thats what maps do. You couldn't reasonably have to go to all places the map covered but would have to look at other maps. Say you got your road names from, say, ten different maps, and one of their "fake road names" got in there. You didn't really steal their map, but still their phony road is on there.. do that one in court..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what if you drew a map , wanted to place the names of a bunch of roads on there because , well , thats what maps do .
You could n't reasonably have to go to all places the map covered but would have to look at other maps .
Say you got your road names from , say , ten different maps , and one of their " fake road names " got in there .
You did n't really steal their map , but still their phony road is on there.. do that one in court. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if you drew a map, wanted to place the names of a bunch of roads on there because, well, thats what maps do.
You couldn't reasonably have to go to all places the map covered but would have to look at other maps.
Say you got your road names from, say, ten different maps, and one of their "fake road names" got in there.
You didn't really steal their map, but still their phony road is on there.. do that one in court..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912115</id>
	<title>OBJECTION</title>
	<author>thehostiles</author>
	<datestamp>1256837700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>isn't this where it all starts? with one word here, one there.

after a few "generations" of changed books, the originals may lose context and meaning.

I'm maintaining a healthy skepticism of this being amazon's plan, to eventually censor books it doesn't agree with and profit from it. Hiding behind anti piracy and protect the children can only last so long...

I'm not saying this IS their plan, just that it could easily be possible given their recent actions (suing people for having public domain books (animal farm and 1984 actually) on kindle devices)</htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't this where it all starts ?
with one word here , one there .
after a few " generations " of changed books , the originals may lose context and meaning .
I 'm maintaining a healthy skepticism of this being amazon 's plan , to eventually censor books it does n't agree with and profit from it .
Hiding behind anti piracy and protect the children can only last so long.. . I 'm not saying this IS their plan , just that it could easily be possible given their recent actions ( suing people for having public domain books ( animal farm and 1984 actually ) on kindle devices )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't this where it all starts?
with one word here, one there.
after a few "generations" of changed books, the originals may lose context and meaning.
I'm maintaining a healthy skepticism of this being amazon's plan, to eventually censor books it doesn't agree with and profit from it.
Hiding behind anti piracy and protect the children can only last so long...

I'm not saying this IS their plan, just that it could easily be possible given their recent actions (suing people for having public domain books (animal farm and 1984 actually) on kindle devices)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908069</id>
	<title>This is going too far...</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1256814120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never again will I ever bye a book from 'Large-single-breasted-female-warrior.com'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never again will I ever bye a book from 'Large-single-breasted-female-warrior.com' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never again will I ever bye a book from 'Large-single-breasted-female-warrior.com'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909783</id>
	<title>New flash for Amazon</title>
	<author>FreekyGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256829060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon also touts the use of 'alternative misspellings for selected words' as a way to provide 'evidence of copyright infringement in a legal action.'</p> </div><p>They're claiming to have invented the Canary Trap?  The prior art on that is 30+ years old...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon also touts the use of 'alternative misspellings for selected words ' as a way to provide 'evidence of copyright infringement in a legal action .
' They 're claiming to have invented the Canary Trap ?
The prior art on that is 30 + years old.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon also touts the use of 'alternative misspellings for selected words' as a way to provide 'evidence of copyright infringement in a legal action.
' They're claiming to have invented the Canary Trap?
The prior art on that is 30+ years old...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908697</id>
	<title>Re:It's not about the patent, it's about the lying</title>
	<author>thannine</author>
	<datestamp>1256822760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's an heretical thing when mapmakers do it, lying (even trivially) and corrupting their craft because of the threat of being copied.  It should not be tolerated there nor should the practice claimed by this patent application be tolerated, not because the patent is bad but because the practice itself is an affront to all of us.</p></div><p>Not only that, but is this even Legal? IANAL and  I'm very unfamiliar with US laws, but I think that at least in Finland it would be illegal to alter a book (without the Author's consent) an then sell it.
(And this is a right that the Author can't even give away)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an heretical thing when mapmakers do it , lying ( even trivially ) and corrupting their craft because of the threat of being copied .
It should not be tolerated there nor should the practice claimed by this patent application be tolerated , not because the patent is bad but because the practice itself is an affront to all of us.Not only that , but is this even Legal ?
IANAL and I 'm very unfamiliar with US laws , but I think that at least in Finland it would be illegal to alter a book ( without the Author 's consent ) an then sell it .
( And this is a right that the Author ca n't even give away )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an heretical thing when mapmakers do it, lying (even trivially) and corrupting their craft because of the threat of being copied.
It should not be tolerated there nor should the practice claimed by this patent application be tolerated, not because the patent is bad but because the practice itself is an affront to all of us.Not only that, but is this even Legal?
IANAL and  I'm very unfamiliar with US laws, but I think that at least in Finland it would be illegal to alter a book (without the Author's consent) an then sell it.
(And this is a right that the Author can't even give away)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907283</id>
	<title>Re:Not a Wise Practice</title>
	<author>vidnet</author>
	<datestamp>1256758860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Second, as an author, I go through quite an effort to make sure that the spelling and grammar are correct throughout any work that I created. To have Amazon completely throw away my efforts and ruin my work would really anger me. This might encourage me to inhibit Amazon from selling any of my work.</i></p><p>Modifying spelling and grammar was just a secondary modification for patent blanketing. The main point was to replace words with their synonyms. You or your editor could go in and find 30 places where a word can be substituted for another, and you'd be able to generate a billion combinations. Chances are you even read the part I quoted without even noticing my modification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Second , as an author , I go through quite an effort to make sure that the spelling and grammar are correct throughout any work that I created .
To have Amazon completely throw away my efforts and ruin my work would really anger me .
This might encourage me to inhibit Amazon from selling any of my work.Modifying spelling and grammar was just a secondary modification for patent blanketing .
The main point was to replace words with their synonyms .
You or your editor could go in and find 30 places where a word can be substituted for another , and you 'd be able to generate a billion combinations .
Chances are you even read the part I quoted without even noticing my modification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second, as an author, I go through quite an effort to make sure that the spelling and grammar are correct throughout any work that I created.
To have Amazon completely throw away my efforts and ruin my work would really anger me.
This might encourage me to inhibit Amazon from selling any of my work.Modifying spelling and grammar was just a secondary modification for patent blanketing.
The main point was to replace words with their synonyms.
You or your editor could go in and find 30 places where a word can be substituted for another, and you'd be able to generate a billion combinations.
Chances are you even read the part I quoted without even noticing my modification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908377</id>
	<title>Substitute this, Amazon!</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1256818920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always look at my Bezos before I flush.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always look at my Bezos before I flush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always look at my Bezos before I flush.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29913421</id>
	<title>THAT explains the typos!</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1256842620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, this is hilarious.</p><p>Kindle books are riddled with typos, presumably caused when print editions are scanned to make e-books. (Why don't they get electronic gallies from the publisher? Who knows?)</p><p>So either they have been causing them on purpose to track redistribution, or this is a fine example of making patented lemonade from the technological lemons produced by their scanners</p><p>I love my kindle, but I hate Amazon more and more each day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , this is hilarious.Kindle books are riddled with typos , presumably caused when print editions are scanned to make e-books .
( Why do n't they get electronic gallies from the publisher ?
Who knows ?
) So either they have been causing them on purpose to track redistribution , or this is a fine example of making patented lemonade from the technological lemons produced by their scannersI love my kindle , but I hate Amazon more and more each day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, this is hilarious.Kindle books are riddled with typos, presumably caused when print editions are scanned to make e-books.
(Why don't they get electronic gallies from the publisher?
Who knows?
)So either they have been causing them on purpose to track redistribution, or this is a fine example of making patented lemonade from the technological lemons produced by their scannersI love my kindle, but I hate Amazon more and more each day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910181</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a very old technique.  Encyclopedias, other compiled reference works (such as biographical directories), and cookbooks, have used fake entries to detect plagiarism for probably well over a century.  You spend several days of your life making and repeatedly testing a cake recipe, then publish it.  Next year, your recipe appears in another cookbook, plagiarized by a writer who spent five minutes of his life copying your work.  So you enter fake recipes that don't work, or biographies of people who don't exist, or entries for topics you make up out of thin air.  Then sue with some pretty good evidence to bring to court.  This is about stealing, whether stealing a person's possessions, or a person's labor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a very old technique .
Encyclopedias , other compiled reference works ( such as biographical directories ) , and cookbooks , have used fake entries to detect plagiarism for probably well over a century .
You spend several days of your life making and repeatedly testing a cake recipe , then publish it .
Next year , your recipe appears in another cookbook , plagiarized by a writer who spent five minutes of his life copying your work .
So you enter fake recipes that do n't work , or biographies of people who do n't exist , or entries for topics you make up out of thin air .
Then sue with some pretty good evidence to bring to court .
This is about stealing , whether stealing a person 's possessions , or a person 's labor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a very old technique.
Encyclopedias, other compiled reference works (such as biographical directories), and cookbooks, have used fake entries to detect plagiarism for probably well over a century.
You spend several days of your life making and repeatedly testing a cake recipe, then publish it.
Next year, your recipe appears in another cookbook, plagiarized by a writer who spent five minutes of his life copying your work.
So you enter fake recipes that don't work, or biographies of people who don't exist, or entries for topics you make up out of thin air.
Then sue with some pretty good evidence to bring to court.
This is about stealing, whether stealing a person's possessions, or a person's labor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906065</id>
	<title>BRILLIANT!</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1256746140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can set the copyright lawyers, representing the authors and publishers, against the patent lawyers representing Amazon.  With any luck, they'll sue each other into the poor house and leave the rest of us alone!</p><p>Alternatively, we could establish a special court that handles these copyright vs patent cases.  When all the lawyers arrive, wall the area up, cut the bridges and toss in a few spiked baseball bats to let 'em fight it out with.  Maybe in New York...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can set the copyright lawyers , representing the authors and publishers , against the patent lawyers representing Amazon .
With any luck , they 'll sue each other into the poor house and leave the rest of us alone ! Alternatively , we could establish a special court that handles these copyright vs patent cases .
When all the lawyers arrive , wall the area up , cut the bridges and toss in a few spiked baseball bats to let 'em fight it out with .
Maybe in New York.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can set the copyright lawyers, representing the authors and publishers, against the patent lawyers representing Amazon.
With any luck, they'll sue each other into the poor house and leave the rest of us alone!Alternatively, we could establish a special court that handles these copyright vs patent cases.
When all the lawyers arrive, wall the area up, cut the bridges and toss in a few spiked baseball bats to let 'em fight it out with.
Maybe in New York...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905841</id>
	<title>Encyclopedias</title>
	<author>JesseBHolmes</author>
	<datestamp>1256744340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a bad practice, but encyclopedias and dictionaries have been doing for years. See Lillian Virginia Mountweasel, the fountain designer/photographer who overcame non-existence to be featured in the 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia as an anti-piracy measure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a bad practice , but encyclopedias and dictionaries have been doing for years .
See Lillian Virginia Mountweasel , the fountain designer/photographer who overcame non-existence to be featured in the 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia as an anti-piracy measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a bad practice, but encyclopedias and dictionaries have been doing for years.
See Lillian Virginia Mountweasel, the fountain designer/photographer who overcame non-existence to be featured in the 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia as an anti-piracy measure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29917089</id>
	<title>Broken system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256813280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't new art at all, the CIA and others have done this for many years, and it's widely known, even used often as a plot device in novels about spies.</p><p>And, of course, all the other objections apply -- this is just stupid, and I will not buy books *ever* that have been through this process.  When I wrote one, it was bad enough that my editor who was trying to preserve my meaning - and understood most of the content (book was about digital signal processing), actually messed it up quite a lot.  True became false, signs in equations got wrong, you name it -- and they were honestly trying to get it right.</p><p>I can't imagine Amazon trying so hard to get it right.  And I learned to spell and many other things as a habitual reader.</p><p>This totally sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't new art at all , the CIA and others have done this for many years , and it 's widely known , even used often as a plot device in novels about spies.And , of course , all the other objections apply -- this is just stupid , and I will not buy books * ever * that have been through this process .
When I wrote one , it was bad enough that my editor who was trying to preserve my meaning - and understood most of the content ( book was about digital signal processing ) , actually messed it up quite a lot .
True became false , signs in equations got wrong , you name it -- and they were honestly trying to get it right.I ca n't imagine Amazon trying so hard to get it right .
And I learned to spell and many other things as a habitual reader.This totally sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't new art at all, the CIA and others have done this for many years, and it's widely known, even used often as a plot device in novels about spies.And, of course, all the other objections apply -- this is just stupid, and I will not buy books *ever* that have been through this process.
When I wrote one, it was bad enough that my editor who was trying to preserve my meaning - and understood most of the content (book was about digital signal processing), actually messed it up quite a lot.
True became false, signs in equations got wrong, you name it -- and they were honestly trying to get it right.I can't imagine Amazon trying so hard to get it right.
And I learned to spell and many other things as a habitual reader.This totally sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908453</id>
	<title>Fraudulent misrepresentation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256820000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely this would lead to a case of fraudulent misrepresentation.</p><p>You buy a book "Charles Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities'".</p><p>But it isn't.</p><p>It's a derived work based on his book and this program's output.</p><p>This would be fraud, would it not?</p><p>And additionally, Stephen King's work is no longer his work, so any copyright infringement is infringement of whoever ran this process on his work (one would assume that the distributor has modification rights to the work...), so either</p><p>a) SK is being stiffed because it's not his work any more<br>b) The distributor is committing widespread commercial copyright infringement (the REAL definition of Piracy wrt copyright)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely this would lead to a case of fraudulent misrepresentation.You buy a book " Charles Dickens ' 'A Tale of Two Cities ' " .But it is n't.It 's a derived work based on his book and this program 's output.This would be fraud , would it not ? And additionally , Stephen King 's work is no longer his work , so any copyright infringement is infringement of whoever ran this process on his work ( one would assume that the distributor has modification rights to the work... ) , so eithera ) SK is being stiffed because it 's not his work any moreb ) The distributor is committing widespread commercial copyright infringement ( the REAL definition of Piracy wrt copyright )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely this would lead to a case of fraudulent misrepresentation.You buy a book "Charles Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities'".But it isn't.It's a derived work based on his book and this program's output.This would be fraud, would it not?And additionally, Stephen King's work is no longer his work, so any copyright infringement is infringement of whoever ran this process on his work (one would assume that the distributor has modification rights to the work...), so eithera) SK is being stiffed because it's not his work any moreb) The distributor is committing widespread commercial copyright infringement (the REAL definition of Piracy wrt copyright)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905717</id>
	<title>Birth of the Anti-Wiki?</title>
	<author>psema4</author>
	<datestamp>1256743500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just don't understand how they hope to apply this in any kind of sensible way.  The whole idea kind of reminds me of a wiki - turned inside out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't understand how they hope to apply this in any kind of sensible way .
The whole idea kind of reminds me of a wiki - turned inside out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't understand how they hope to apply this in any kind of sensible way.
The whole idea kind of reminds me of a wiki - turned inside out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907079</id>
	<title>Re:Not a Wise Practice</title>
	<author>Mhrmnhrm</author>
	<datestamp>1256756640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Errmm... I could have sworn that Clancy called it "Canary," not "The Smoking Word Processor."  Either way, it's 20-year old prior art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Errmm... I could have sworn that Clancy called it " Canary , " not " The Smoking Word Processor .
" Either way , it 's 20-year old prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Errmm... I could have sworn that Clancy called it "Canary," not "The Smoking Word Processor.
"  Either way, it's 20-year old prior art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906075</id>
	<title>Tom Clancy described this in Patriot Games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>See "Canary Trap" in "Patriot Games"</htmltext>
<tokenext>See " Canary Trap " in " Patriot Games "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See "Canary Trap" in "Patriot Games"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909665</id>
	<title>Re:It's not about the patent, it's about the lying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256828520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, I'm (ahem) fairly knowledgeable about this field, and this is a really dumb (and elementary) scheme. They shouldn't be granted a patent on it, as it's a textbook example of what <i>not</i> to do in watermarking.</p><p>Why? Because it's noticeable, <i>and</i> they've just told everyone about it. Given that this is a field overwhelmingly reliant on obscurity, that was really not a very smart thing for them to do.</p><p>The goal of steganography - and watermarking is a form of steganography - is to remain undetected to an attacker. The most powerful thing a watermark can be is invisible, because it's only got an advantage when the attacker doesn't know it's there. When an attacker knows that a watermark is present, they can use an attack such as a collusion attack (which you described, and which is one of the most powerful classes of steganalysis/antisteganography), although other powerful attacks also exist.</p><p>While some schemes attempt to be resistant to this, nothing (even a mark tree) is actually immune, especially if you know how the marking scheme works. It's not even true that the stronger and more noticeable you make a stegomark, the harder it is to remove. Sometimes very strong ones are easy to remove (although weak ones are never hard). And the outcome from a successful colluding removal will be higher-quality and more compressible than all the watermarked copies, because you've removed the (deliberate) noise.</p><p>Unfortunately to the would-be watermarker, as a matter of theory, optimal lossless compression provides a perfect stegomark detection, and optimal lossy compression provides a perfect stegomark removal. Most of the compression and filtering techniques out there make absolute mincemeat out of the entire watermarking field, providing for very powerful detection and removal attacks, and they can even improve the quality on the way (in this field, for example, instead of a scanned PDF containing the encoded noise of a watermark, even scattered in written form - which <i>will</i> reduce the compressibility of the text as introducing a stegomark raises the entropy - the attacker could collude amongst 10 or 15 different copies and reconstruct the source text, producing a smaller, completely clean PDF with no unnecessary scanned images or noise; a file of identical or superior perceived quality in a smaller form is generally more desirable).</p><p>A more subtle technique of tweaking the typesetting - inter-word tracking, perhaps, or minor changes in line spacing - would be more effective because it is more likely to go unnoticed, but once the attacker knows a watermark may be present, the game is up.</p><p>And that's what makes this scheme really dumb; that they've told everyone about it now, so now people know to look for it. Besides, I can't imagine the authors being particularly happy. Their publishers may have rights to edit for copy-setting or localisation purposes, but the authors may retain rights of approval in some cases, and I'm pretty sure that right would never extend to the retailers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , I 'm ( ahem ) fairly knowledgeable about this field , and this is a really dumb ( and elementary ) scheme .
They should n't be granted a patent on it , as it 's a textbook example of what not to do in watermarking.Why ?
Because it 's noticeable , and they 've just told everyone about it .
Given that this is a field overwhelmingly reliant on obscurity , that was really not a very smart thing for them to do.The goal of steganography - and watermarking is a form of steganography - is to remain undetected to an attacker .
The most powerful thing a watermark can be is invisible , because it 's only got an advantage when the attacker does n't know it 's there .
When an attacker knows that a watermark is present , they can use an attack such as a collusion attack ( which you described , and which is one of the most powerful classes of steganalysis/antisteganography ) , although other powerful attacks also exist.While some schemes attempt to be resistant to this , nothing ( even a mark tree ) is actually immune , especially if you know how the marking scheme works .
It 's not even true that the stronger and more noticeable you make a stegomark , the harder it is to remove .
Sometimes very strong ones are easy to remove ( although weak ones are never hard ) .
And the outcome from a successful colluding removal will be higher-quality and more compressible than all the watermarked copies , because you 've removed the ( deliberate ) noise.Unfortunately to the would-be watermarker , as a matter of theory , optimal lossless compression provides a perfect stegomark detection , and optimal lossy compression provides a perfect stegomark removal .
Most of the compression and filtering techniques out there make absolute mincemeat out of the entire watermarking field , providing for very powerful detection and removal attacks , and they can even improve the quality on the way ( in this field , for example , instead of a scanned PDF containing the encoded noise of a watermark , even scattered in written form - which will reduce the compressibility of the text as introducing a stegomark raises the entropy - the attacker could collude amongst 10 or 15 different copies and reconstruct the source text , producing a smaller , completely clean PDF with no unnecessary scanned images or noise ; a file of identical or superior perceived quality in a smaller form is generally more desirable ) .A more subtle technique of tweaking the typesetting - inter-word tracking , perhaps , or minor changes in line spacing - would be more effective because it is more likely to go unnoticed , but once the attacker knows a watermark may be present , the game is up.And that 's what makes this scheme really dumb ; that they 've told everyone about it now , so now people know to look for it .
Besides , I ca n't imagine the authors being particularly happy .
Their publishers may have rights to edit for copy-setting or localisation purposes , but the authors may retain rights of approval in some cases , and I 'm pretty sure that right would never extend to the retailers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, I'm (ahem) fairly knowledgeable about this field, and this is a really dumb (and elementary) scheme.
They shouldn't be granted a patent on it, as it's a textbook example of what not to do in watermarking.Why?
Because it's noticeable, and they've just told everyone about it.
Given that this is a field overwhelmingly reliant on obscurity, that was really not a very smart thing for them to do.The goal of steganography - and watermarking is a form of steganography - is to remain undetected to an attacker.
The most powerful thing a watermark can be is invisible, because it's only got an advantage when the attacker doesn't know it's there.
When an attacker knows that a watermark is present, they can use an attack such as a collusion attack (which you described, and which is one of the most powerful classes of steganalysis/antisteganography), although other powerful attacks also exist.While some schemes attempt to be resistant to this, nothing (even a mark tree) is actually immune, especially if you know how the marking scheme works.
It's not even true that the stronger and more noticeable you make a stegomark, the harder it is to remove.
Sometimes very strong ones are easy to remove (although weak ones are never hard).
And the outcome from a successful colluding removal will be higher-quality and more compressible than all the watermarked copies, because you've removed the (deliberate) noise.Unfortunately to the would-be watermarker, as a matter of theory, optimal lossless compression provides a perfect stegomark detection, and optimal lossy compression provides a perfect stegomark removal.
Most of the compression and filtering techniques out there make absolute mincemeat out of the entire watermarking field, providing for very powerful detection and removal attacks, and they can even improve the quality on the way (in this field, for example, instead of a scanned PDF containing the encoded noise of a watermark, even scattered in written form - which will reduce the compressibility of the text as introducing a stegomark raises the entropy - the attacker could collude amongst 10 or 15 different copies and reconstruct the source text, producing a smaller, completely clean PDF with no unnecessary scanned images or noise; a file of identical or superior perceived quality in a smaller form is generally more desirable).A more subtle technique of tweaking the typesetting - inter-word tracking, perhaps, or minor changes in line spacing - would be more effective because it is more likely to go unnoticed, but once the attacker knows a watermark may be present, the game is up.And that's what makes this scheme really dumb; that they've told everyone about it now, so now people know to look for it.
Besides, I can't imagine the authors being particularly happy.
Their publishers may have rights to edit for copy-setting or localisation purposes, but the authors may retain rights of approval in some cases, and I'm pretty sure that right would never extend to the retailers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906015</id>
	<title>Let me see if I got this right...</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1256745720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> You want to prevent piracy by altering parts to later attempt to prove it was pirated? Ok, do it. Then the pirates will just do the same and systematically substitute synonyms themselves in order to delude this technique. Sure it may not be perfect, but this sounds almost like a challenge by the industry. And you know what happens when you tempt hackers with an apple. As the saying goes, "Security through obscurity has never worked, and it never will." But I bet you can still market it to the drones who think they are paying for adequate technology. And if it reduces piracy out of sheer fear, and just gets people scared, then it is akin to "bad" publicity. Although it may be negative, it could still be considered successful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to prevent piracy by altering parts to later attempt to prove it was pirated ?
Ok , do it .
Then the pirates will just do the same and systematically substitute synonyms themselves in order to delude this technique .
Sure it may not be perfect , but this sounds almost like a challenge by the industry .
And you know what happens when you tempt hackers with an apple .
As the saying goes , " Security through obscurity has never worked , and it never will .
" But I bet you can still market it to the drones who think they are paying for adequate technology .
And if it reduces piracy out of sheer fear , and just gets people scared , then it is akin to " bad " publicity .
Although it may be negative , it could still be considered successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You want to prevent piracy by altering parts to later attempt to prove it was pirated?
Ok, do it.
Then the pirates will just do the same and systematically substitute synonyms themselves in order to delude this technique.
Sure it may not be perfect, but this sounds almost like a challenge by the industry.
And you know what happens when you tempt hackers with an apple.
As the saying goes, "Security through obscurity has never worked, and it never will.
" But I bet you can still market it to the drones who think they are paying for adequate technology.
And if it reduces piracy out of sheer fear, and just gets people scared, then it is akin to "bad" publicity.
Although it may be negative, it could still be considered successful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906105</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Your.Master</author>
	<datestamp>1256746380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't blame people for not reading the claims section, because it's necessarily an obtuse fusion of legalese and jargon.</p><p>But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this.  Patents cover implementations, and not ideas.  Some have argued that the line has been blurred with certain classes of patents, but it hasn't blurred so far that the concept in the slashdot summary is actually locked up as IP.</p><p>Frankly, I can't be bothered to look at the claims either.  But the idea itself certainly lends itself to ideas that are patentable (whether they should be patentable or will be rendered retroactively invalid is another question).  For instance, I'm curious how they identify which words should be replaced, and the system by which they choose a synonym that hopefully doesn't destroy rhyming patterns, metrical rhythm, puns, shades of meaning, and ambiguity in words with multiple meanings that don't completely intersect the candidate synonym's meaning.</p><p>Also, whatever they are they doing to prevent the trivial case of three copies being compared to recover the original.  Maybe they have a bunch of sets of synonyms that are commonly replaced so you need more to get the original, but even then, do they arrange it in some way so that the source of the leaks can be traced down despite the alteration?  Or maybe they just assume that book pirates are morons.</p><p>They might do nothing for any of those cases, mind you.  Once again, I can't be bothered to read these damned things.  Which is part of why I don't submit articles about ones that I've decided I think are actually stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't blame people for not reading the claims section , because it 's necessarily an obtuse fusion of legalese and jargon.But no , they did not patent * doing * this , they patented the * way * that they do this .
Patents cover implementations , and not ideas .
Some have argued that the line has been blurred with certain classes of patents , but it has n't blurred so far that the concept in the slashdot summary is actually locked up as IP.Frankly , I ca n't be bothered to look at the claims either .
But the idea itself certainly lends itself to ideas that are patentable ( whether they should be patentable or will be rendered retroactively invalid is another question ) .
For instance , I 'm curious how they identify which words should be replaced , and the system by which they choose a synonym that hopefully does n't destroy rhyming patterns , metrical rhythm , puns , shades of meaning , and ambiguity in words with multiple meanings that do n't completely intersect the candidate synonym 's meaning.Also , whatever they are they doing to prevent the trivial case of three copies being compared to recover the original .
Maybe they have a bunch of sets of synonyms that are commonly replaced so you need more to get the original , but even then , do they arrange it in some way so that the source of the leaks can be traced down despite the alteration ?
Or maybe they just assume that book pirates are morons.They might do nothing for any of those cases , mind you .
Once again , I ca n't be bothered to read these damned things .
Which is part of why I do n't submit articles about ones that I 've decided I think are actually stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't blame people for not reading the claims section, because it's necessarily an obtuse fusion of legalese and jargon.But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this.
Patents cover implementations, and not ideas.
Some have argued that the line has been blurred with certain classes of patents, but it hasn't blurred so far that the concept in the slashdot summary is actually locked up as IP.Frankly, I can't be bothered to look at the claims either.
But the idea itself certainly lends itself to ideas that are patentable (whether they should be patentable or will be rendered retroactively invalid is another question).
For instance, I'm curious how they identify which words should be replaced, and the system by which they choose a synonym that hopefully doesn't destroy rhyming patterns, metrical rhythm, puns, shades of meaning, and ambiguity in words with multiple meanings that don't completely intersect the candidate synonym's meaning.Also, whatever they are they doing to prevent the trivial case of three copies being compared to recover the original.
Maybe they have a bunch of sets of synonyms that are commonly replaced so you need more to get the original, but even then, do they arrange it in some way so that the source of the leaks can be traced down despite the alteration?
Or maybe they just assume that book pirates are morons.They might do nothing for any of those cases, mind you.
Once again, I can't be bothered to read these damned things.
Which is part of why I don't submit articles about ones that I've decided I think are actually stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909907</id>
	<title>Only if...</title>
	<author>eth1</author>
	<datestamp>1256829600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I can sue Amazon for damages when my "Hamlet" paper is docked points for inaccurate direct quotations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I can sue Amazon for damages when my " Hamlet " paper is docked points for inaccurate direct quotations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I can sue Amazon for damages when my "Hamlet" paper is docked points for inaccurate direct quotations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906129</id>
	<title>Water goats...</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1256746680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great. I'm looking forward to a whole new crop of engineering textbooks with references to "water goats" instead of "hydraulic rams"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
I 'm looking forward to a whole new crop of engineering textbooks with references to " water goats " instead of " hydraulic rams "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
I'm looking forward to a whole new crop of engineering textbooks with references to "water goats" instead of "hydraulic rams"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906783</id>
	<title>What are they trying to 'fix' here?</title>
	<author>SoonerSkeene</author>
	<datestamp>1256752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone here is focused on how illegal this patent might be in practice (changing the author's words). But my question is more fundamental...

What are they trying to prevent? Is it illegal for me to loan to a friend a copy of a book I purchased?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone here is focused on how illegal this patent might be in practice ( changing the author 's words ) .
But my question is more fundamental.. . What are they trying to prevent ?
Is it illegal for me to loan to a friend a copy of a book I purchased ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone here is focused on how illegal this patent might be in practice (changing the author's words).
But my question is more fundamental...

What are they trying to prevent?
Is it illegal for me to loan to a friend a copy of a book I purchased?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905721</id>
	<title>Fiction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256743560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering...would they be foolhardy enough to use this technique on distributed fiction? You know, like non-fiction I can <i>maybe</i> understand because of its emphasis on information over form, but some fiction, literature in particular, is based on poetic structure. For example, if the piece has some alliteration like "Wendy's Weird Wedding Waltz" (no, this is not a good example, just the best I can come up with right now), and this program got hold of it, "Wendy's Strange Wedding Waltz" lost some of that alliteration and possibly some literary depth. I think that if that was the case, people would be up in arms, simply because they're distributing what is essentially a plagiarized work, because it's not the author's original, but is absurdly similar.</p><p>Of course, I may not quite understand what the program will/could be used for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering...would they be foolhardy enough to use this technique on distributed fiction ?
You know , like non-fiction I can maybe understand because of its emphasis on information over form , but some fiction , literature in particular , is based on poetic structure .
For example , if the piece has some alliteration like " Wendy 's Weird Wedding Waltz " ( no , this is not a good example , just the best I can come up with right now ) , and this program got hold of it , " Wendy 's Strange Wedding Waltz " lost some of that alliteration and possibly some literary depth .
I think that if that was the case , people would be up in arms , simply because they 're distributing what is essentially a plagiarized work , because it 's not the author 's original , but is absurdly similar.Of course , I may not quite understand what the program will/could be used for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering...would they be foolhardy enough to use this technique on distributed fiction?
You know, like non-fiction I can maybe understand because of its emphasis on information over form, but some fiction, literature in particular, is based on poetic structure.
For example, if the piece has some alliteration like "Wendy's Weird Wedding Waltz" (no, this is not a good example, just the best I can come up with right now), and this program got hold of it, "Wendy's Strange Wedding Waltz" lost some of that alliteration and possibly some literary depth.
I think that if that was the case, people would be up in arms, simply because they're distributing what is essentially a plagiarized work, because it's not the author's original, but is absurdly similar.Of course, I may not quite understand what the program will/could be used for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907401</id>
	<title>A86, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256846520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone remember the A86 assembler? Its author also claimed to have inserted a way to put a signature into code using variations of mov ax, bx and push ax, pop bx (or similar cases), which he was ready to prove in a court if necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember the A86 assembler ?
Its author also claimed to have inserted a way to put a signature into code using variations of mov ax , bx and push ax , pop bx ( or similar cases ) , which he was ready to prove in a court if necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember the A86 assembler?
Its author also claimed to have inserted a way to put a signature into code using variations of mov ax, bx and push ax, pop bx (or similar cases), which he was ready to prove in a court if necessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906091</id>
	<title>How did this get through</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1256746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mapmakers have been adding fictitious towns for many years (as many have commented).</p><p>People who sell lists have been doing this for many years. (Who's Who, for example, adds a few fictitious people for this purpose, and I believe so do the Yellow Pages.)</p><p>People trying to catch spies have been doing this for many years. (I first heard about this during the Thatcher years in the UK, and it wasn't new then.)</p><p>So, how, exactly is this new and non-obvious ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mapmakers have been adding fictitious towns for many years ( as many have commented ) .People who sell lists have been doing this for many years .
( Who 's Who , for example , adds a few fictitious people for this purpose , and I believe so do the Yellow Pages .
) People trying to catch spies have been doing this for many years .
( I first heard about this during the Thatcher years in the UK , and it was n't new then .
) So , how , exactly is this new and non-obvious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mapmakers have been adding fictitious towns for many years (as many have commented).People who sell lists have been doing this for many years.
(Who's Who, for example, adds a few fictitious people for this purpose, and I believe so do the Yellow Pages.
)People trying to catch spies have been doing this for many years.
(I first heard about this during the Thatcher years in the UK, and it wasn't new then.
)So, how, exactly is this new and non-obvious ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905417</id>
	<title>sounds like copyright infringement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>also, suck my cock you homos!</htmltext>
<tokenext>also , suck my cock you homos !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also, suck my cock you homos!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905757</id>
	<title>Old-fashioned books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256743740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dictionary and encyclopedia publishers often put a fake word or article in to catch copiers. See Lillian Virginia Mountweazel, the fountain designer/photographer who appears in the 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia despite never existing.

Still, not good. I feel safer with paper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dictionary and encyclopedia publishers often put a fake word or article in to catch copiers .
See Lillian Virginia Mountweazel , the fountain designer/photographer who appears in the 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia despite never existing .
Still , not good .
I feel safer with paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dictionary and encyclopedia publishers often put a fake word or article in to catch copiers.
See Lillian Virginia Mountweazel, the fountain designer/photographer who appears in the 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia despite never existing.
Still, not good.
I feel safer with paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910039</id>
	<title>You can always tell</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1256830140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can always tell whether someone is trying to preach to the choir, or whether they really want to convince others of their viewpoint.  It's too bad so few understand that publically making arguments that serve the former, actually hurts their cause with respect to the latter.</p><p>"<i>After all, anti-piracy measures should trump kids' ability to spell correctly, shouldn't they?</i>"</p><p>Really?  "Won't somebody think of the children?"  Kids can't be taught to spell if there are mis-spellings in some material they might see?  Get off it.  Strained argumetns like these only make you and your entire cause look desperate.</p><p>The problem with this technology is, if I buy a book and you change a few words to synonyms, then <i>you haven't sold me what I bought</i>.  You've sold me a defective product, and I should be within my rights to sue you for it.  (And yes, I think the same applies to mapmakers.  If I buy a depiction of an areas geography, I expect every mark in that depiction to reflect a fact about that area.  If some marks appear to but don't... you may think it's a "minor" change but it might make a difference to me.  Map is defective should mean lawsuit.)</p><p>On the other hand, technology like this <i>would</i> be useful for enhancing full-text search capabilities.  It's never about the technology, it's how you use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can always tell whether someone is trying to preach to the choir , or whether they really want to convince others of their viewpoint .
It 's too bad so few understand that publically making arguments that serve the former , actually hurts their cause with respect to the latter .
" After all , anti-piracy measures should trump kids ' ability to spell correctly , should n't they ? " Really ?
" Wo n't somebody think of the children ?
" Kids ca n't be taught to spell if there are mis-spellings in some material they might see ?
Get off it .
Strained argumetns like these only make you and your entire cause look desperate.The problem with this technology is , if I buy a book and you change a few words to synonyms , then you have n't sold me what I bought .
You 've sold me a defective product , and I should be within my rights to sue you for it .
( And yes , I think the same applies to mapmakers .
If I buy a depiction of an areas geography , I expect every mark in that depiction to reflect a fact about that area .
If some marks appear to but do n't... you may think it 's a " minor " change but it might make a difference to me .
Map is defective should mean lawsuit .
) On the other hand , technology like this would be useful for enhancing full-text search capabilities .
It 's never about the technology , it 's how you use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can always tell whether someone is trying to preach to the choir, or whether they really want to convince others of their viewpoint.
It's too bad so few understand that publically making arguments that serve the former, actually hurts their cause with respect to the latter.
"After all, anti-piracy measures should trump kids' ability to spell correctly, shouldn't they?"Really?
"Won't somebody think of the children?
"  Kids can't be taught to spell if there are mis-spellings in some material they might see?
Get off it.
Strained argumetns like these only make you and your entire cause look desperate.The problem with this technology is, if I buy a book and you change a few words to synonyms, then you haven't sold me what I bought.
You've sold me a defective product, and I should be within my rights to sue you for it.
(And yes, I think the same applies to mapmakers.
If I buy a depiction of an areas geography, I expect every mark in that depiction to reflect a fact about that area.
If some marks appear to but don't... you may think it's a "minor" change but it might make a difference to me.
Map is defective should mean lawsuit.
)On the other hand, technology like this would be useful for enhancing full-text search capabilities.
It's never about the technology, it's how you use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29921633</id>
	<title>hi</title>
	<author>raynorgmail</author>
	<datestamp>1256897040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905573</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>arogier</author>
	<datestamp>1256742540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to wonder what happens if God forbid someone was to cite one of these texts and attribute a quote to a copy which may be materially different to another copy of the same text.  Is each copy to be treated as its own addition?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder what happens if God forbid someone was to cite one of these texts and attribute a quote to a copy which may be materially different to another copy of the same text .
Is each copy to be treated as its own addition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder what happens if God forbid someone was to cite one of these texts and attribute a quote to a copy which may be materially different to another copy of the same text.
Is each copy to be treated as its own addition?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907909</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256811900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with their "invention" is that it infringes on the copyright of the original author by selling modified versions of his work under his name. They will be sued for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with their " invention " is that it infringes on the copyright of the original author by selling modified versions of his work under his name .
They will be sued for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with their "invention" is that it infringes on the copyright of the original author by selling modified versions of his work under his name.
They will be sued for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906057</id>
	<title>So any serious pirate group</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1256746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Acquires two copies of the work in question.  Merges the differences- compares those lists and generates a copy that fingers someone else or no one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Acquires two copies of the work in question .
Merges the differences- compares those lists and generates a copy that fingers someone else or no one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acquires two copies of the work in question.
Merges the differences- compares those lists and generates a copy that fingers someone else or no one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906577</id>
	<title>A Scanner Dumbly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't context more important? I can use similar words in similar sentences and they can come out as completely different things. So, if I am sufficiently clever then I will be able to manipulate the source ins such a way that the context will remain the same, but the words will be so different that it'll pass their tests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't context more important ?
I can use similar words in similar sentences and they can come out as completely different things .
So , if I am sufficiently clever then I will be able to manipulate the source ins such a way that the context will remain the same , but the words will be so different that it 'll pass their tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't context more important?
I can use similar words in similar sentences and they can come out as completely different things.
So, if I am sufficiently clever then I will be able to manipulate the source ins such a way that the context will remain the same, but the words will be so different that it'll pass their tests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912047</id>
	<title>Re:How did this get through</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256837520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFAIK, the difference is that in the map and list businesses, publisher A only makes one version - the added fake data is to catch another publisher B republishing A's work. In the spy example, it's done on a small and 1-to-1 basis: we suspect someone is a spy, we leak altered docs to them, but the trusted people are still getting the clean versions.</p><p>This is new and non-obvious because they're using computers to have every single copy be uniquely different, in an attempt to catch ANYONE distributing ANY copies of ANY book amazon sells digital versions of. Doing this right is complicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , the difference is that in the map and list businesses , publisher A only makes one version - the added fake data is to catch another publisher B republishing A 's work .
In the spy example , it 's done on a small and 1-to-1 basis : we suspect someone is a spy , we leak altered docs to them , but the trusted people are still getting the clean versions.This is new and non-obvious because they 're using computers to have every single copy be uniquely different , in an attempt to catch ANYONE distributing ANY copies of ANY book amazon sells digital versions of .
Doing this right is complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, the difference is that in the map and list businesses, publisher A only makes one version - the added fake data is to catch another publisher B republishing A's work.
In the spy example, it's done on a small and 1-to-1 basis: we suspect someone is a spy, we leak altered docs to them, but the trusted people are still getting the clean versions.This is new and non-obvious because they're using computers to have every single copy be uniquely different, in an attempt to catch ANYONE distributing ANY copies of ANY book amazon sells digital versions of.
Doing this right is complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908167</id>
	<title>Prior Art - Violation of Copyright</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256815980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so aside from the copyright violation this may very well be, map makers have been doing this for centuries. They make subtle yet innocuous errors in maps to make sure that other map companies don't steal their work for their own. How is this any different or innovative? Oh right, it's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so aside from the copyright violation this may very well be , map makers have been doing this for centuries .
They make subtle yet innocuous errors in maps to make sure that other map companies do n't steal their work for their own .
How is this any different or innovative ?
Oh right , it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so aside from the copyright violation this may very well be, map makers have been doing this for centuries.
They make subtle yet innocuous errors in maps to make sure that other map companies don't steal their work for their own.
How is this any different or innovative?
Oh right, it's not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907237</id>
	<title>Re:Not a Wise Practice</title>
	<author>slicerwizard</author>
	<datestamp>1256758380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"First, there is (sic) already pre-existing examples of this practice."
<br> <br>
"Second, as an author, I go through quite an effort to ensure that the spelling and grammar are correct throughout any work that I created (sic)."
<br> <br>
Hm. Convince me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" First , there is ( sic ) already pre-existing examples of this practice .
" " Second , as an author , I go through quite an effort to ensure that the spelling and grammar are correct throughout any work that I created ( sic ) .
" Hm .
Convince me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"First, there is (sic) already pre-existing examples of this practice.
"
 
"Second, as an author, I go through quite an effort to ensure that the spelling and grammar are correct throughout any work that I created (sic).
"
 
Hm.
Convince me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906583</id>
	<title>Didn't we see IBM patent this already?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, it was for spotting email leaks, but it's the same thing: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/24/2243209/IBM-Seeks-Patent-On-Digital-Witch-Hunts</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it was for spotting email leaks , but it 's the same thing : http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/24/2243209/IBM-Seeks-Patent-On-Digital-Witch-Hunts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it was for spotting email leaks, but it's the same thing: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/24/2243209/IBM-Seeks-Patent-On-Digital-Witch-Hunts</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906259</id>
	<title>Prior art?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256747760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to remember Tom Clancy using this in one of his Jack Ryan books about a decade ago. Called the 'canary trap'. Used to mark copies of classified documents. When the leaked document was analyzed, the specific source copy could be traced to catch the leak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember Tom Clancy using this in one of his Jack Ryan books about a decade ago .
Called the 'canary trap' .
Used to mark copies of classified documents .
When the leaked document was analyzed , the specific source copy could be traced to catch the leak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember Tom Clancy using this in one of his Jack Ryan books about a decade ago.
Called the 'canary trap'.
Used to mark copies of classified documents.
When the leaked document was analyzed, the specific source copy could be traced to catch the leak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905785</id>
	<title>The Authorized Amazon Version of The Bible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256743980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And people complained about the King James version being altered. I can just picture it, 20 years from now, a group of tomorrows theologians are busy studying the Authorized Amazon Version of the Bible trying to deduce the 'real' meaning of the text/God.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And people complained about the King James version being altered .
I can just picture it , 20 years from now , a group of tomorrows theologians are busy studying the Authorized Amazon Version of the Bible trying to deduce the 'real ' meaning of the text/God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people complained about the King James version being altered.
I can just picture it, 20 years from now, a group of tomorrows theologians are busy studying the Authorized Amazon Version of the Bible trying to deduce the 'real' meaning of the text/God.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906019</id>
	<title>Like the Dialectizer or the lolcat translator?</title>
	<author>Roblimo</author>
	<datestamp>1256745780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm? Does this mean Amazon has re-invented and patented The Dialectizer? -- <a href="http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/" title="rinkworks.com">http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/</a> [rinkworks.com]</p><p>Or the lolcat translator? - <a href="http://speaklolcat.com/" title="speaklolcat.com">http://speaklolcat.com/</a> [speaklolcat.com]</p><p>"SPEEK SOFTLY AN CARRY HOOJ STICK" -- Theodore Catavelt</p><p>"Speek sufftly und cerry a beeg steeck" -- Theobork Borkevelt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm ?
Does this mean Amazon has re-invented and patented The Dialectizer ?
-- http : //www.rinkworks.com/dialect/ [ rinkworks.com ] Or the lolcat translator ?
- http : //speaklolcat.com/ [ speaklolcat.com ] " SPEEK SOFTLY AN CARRY HOOJ STICK " -- Theodore Catavelt " Speek sufftly und cerry a beeg steeck " -- Theobork Borkevelt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm?
Does this mean Amazon has re-invented and patented The Dialectizer?
-- http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/ [rinkworks.com]Or the lolcat translator?
- http://speaklolcat.com/ [speaklolcat.com]"SPEEK SOFTLY AN CARRY HOOJ STICK" -- Theodore Catavelt"Speek sufftly und cerry a beeg steeck" -- Theobork Borkevelt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910679</id>
	<title>Re:It's not about the patent, it's about the lying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just patented that exact technology, I call it Ye Pirate Book Compare Facility [YPBCF]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just patented that exact technology , I call it Ye Pirate Book Compare Facility [ YPBCF ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just patented that exact technology, I call it Ye Pirate Book Compare Facility [YPBCF]...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906085</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1256746200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That fingers other mapmakers but not people who purchase your maps.</p><p>Encyclopedia makers did this too.</p><p>Amazon seems to hope to individually change each book sold--- I think their goal is unrealistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That fingers other mapmakers but not people who purchase your maps.Encyclopedia makers did this too.Amazon seems to hope to individually change each book sold--- I think their goal is unrealistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That fingers other mapmakers but not people who purchase your maps.Encyclopedia makers did this too.Amazon seems to hope to individually change each book sold--- I think their goal is unrealistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906279</id>
	<title>The logical progression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256747940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this becomes widespread, here's how it'll go: first, pirate groups will only have to pay for/obtain a couple extra copies, and come up with an automated reconstruction system that will compare the copies and perform error correction. Then the publishers will start obfuscating things more and more, and the pirate groups will develop more and more advanced algorithms. Eventually, the publishers will be publishing near-100\% noise, with their heads too far up their asses to realize it, the only people buying copies will be the dedicated pirate groups, who will afford it by charging for their services, and before you know it, "content miners" will just be another step in the chain. The establishment is just last generation's rebels, am I right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this becomes widespread , here 's how it 'll go : first , pirate groups will only have to pay for/obtain a couple extra copies , and come up with an automated reconstruction system that will compare the copies and perform error correction .
Then the publishers will start obfuscating things more and more , and the pirate groups will develop more and more advanced algorithms .
Eventually , the publishers will be publishing near-100 \ % noise , with their heads too far up their asses to realize it , the only people buying copies will be the dedicated pirate groups , who will afford it by charging for their services , and before you know it , " content miners " will just be another step in the chain .
The establishment is just last generation 's rebels , am I right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this becomes widespread, here's how it'll go: first, pirate groups will only have to pay for/obtain a couple extra copies, and come up with an automated reconstruction system that will compare the copies and perform error correction.
Then the publishers will start obfuscating things more and more, and the pirate groups will develop more and more advanced algorithms.
Eventually, the publishers will be publishing near-100\% noise, with their heads too far up their asses to realize it, the only people buying copies will be the dedicated pirate groups, who will afford it by charging for their services, and before you know it, "content miners" will just be another step in the chain.
The establishment is just last generation's rebels, am I right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906809</id>
	<title>For those who can't understand the article ...</title>
	<author>ProfM</author>
	<datestamp>1256753160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the <a href="http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jbc/home/chef.html" title="utexas.edu" rel="nofollow">JiveSpeak Translator</a> [utexas.edu] </p><blockquote><div><p>"To 'esist o' not t'exist, dig dis: dat be de query. Slap mah fro! Dat's whut de famous Hamlet soliloquy might look likes if subjected t'Amazon's newly-patented System and Medod fo' Markin' Content, which calls fo' ' honky codematically substitutin' synonyms into distributed text content,' includin' 'scribblin's, sho't sto'ies, product reviews, scribblin' o' movie reviews, news articles, edito'ial articles, technical sheets, scholastic sheets, and so's on' in an effo't t'uniquely identify customers who redistribute material. In its descripshun uh de 'invenshun,' Amazon also touts de use uh 'alternative misspellin's fo' selected wo'ds' as some way t'provide 'evidence uh copyright infrin'ement in some legal acshun.' Afta' all, anti-piracy measho' nuffs should trump kids' ability t'spell co'rectly, shouldn't dey?"</p></div> </blockquote><p>Oops<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just killed the patent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the JiveSpeak Translator [ utexas.edu ] " To 'esist o ' not t'exist , dig dis : dat be de query .
Slap mah fro !
Dat 's whut de famous Hamlet soliloquy might look likes if subjected t'Amazon 's newly-patented System and Medod fo ' Markin ' Content , which calls fo ' ' honky codematically substitutin ' synonyms into distributed text content, ' includin ' 'scribblin 's , sho't sto'ies , product reviews , scribblin ' o ' movie reviews , news articles , edito'ial articles , technical sheets , scholastic sheets , and so 's on ' in an effo't t'uniquely identify customers who redistribute material .
In its descripshun uh de 'invenshun, ' Amazon also touts de use uh 'alternative misspellin 's fo ' selected wo'ds ' as some way t'provide 'evidence uh copyright infrin'ement in some legal acshun .
' Afta ' all , anti-piracy measho ' nuffs should trump kids ' ability t'spell co'rectly , should n't dey ?
" Oops ... just killed the patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the JiveSpeak Translator [utexas.edu] "To 'esist o' not t'exist, dig dis: dat be de query.
Slap mah fro!
Dat's whut de famous Hamlet soliloquy might look likes if subjected t'Amazon's newly-patented System and Medod fo' Markin' Content, which calls fo' ' honky codematically substitutin' synonyms into distributed text content,' includin' 'scribblin's, sho't sto'ies, product reviews, scribblin' o' movie reviews, news articles, edito'ial articles, technical sheets, scholastic sheets, and so's on' in an effo't t'uniquely identify customers who redistribute material.
In its descripshun uh de 'invenshun,' Amazon also touts de use uh 'alternative misspellin's fo' selected wo'ds' as some way t'provide 'evidence uh copyright infrin'ement in some legal acshun.
' Afta' all, anti-piracy measho' nuffs should trump kids' ability t'spell co'rectly, shouldn't dey?
" Oops ... just killed the patent.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908497</id>
	<title>Re:It's not about the patent, it's about the lying</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1256820300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With sufficiently many copies, you might even be able to engineer a false watermark to implicate some poor random guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With sufficiently many copies , you might even be able to engineer a false watermark to implicate some poor random guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With sufficiently many copies, you might even be able to engineer a false watermark to implicate some poor random guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906365</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly</title>
	<author>Demena</author>
	<datestamp>1256748660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is why this should not be patentable.  It has already been in use for a century or more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is why this should not be patentable .
It has already been in use for a century or more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is why this should not be patentable.
It has already been in use for a century or more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29913373</id>
	<title>Re:It's also about art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256842440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of the earlier days of P2P file sharing (over Kazaa and similar networks). The record companies would spread mp3 files that appeared legit until you played them, then you'd realize they were just 10-15sec pieces of the song looped over and over again. It sounded good enough that if you used the "preview" feature many download clients had, it would sound like the real thing. Some people thought that they had actually downloaded the real song (quite understandable if you're looking for Foo Fighters songs XD) and complained that the new song was too repetitive, so bad reviews were spreading about the new albums.
<br> <br>
Of course these days, torrent sites offer reviews and comments to prevent fake stuff from spreading, but other file sharing systems like Limewire don't. Hmm, I wonder why they stopped doing that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the earlier days of P2P file sharing ( over Kazaa and similar networks ) .
The record companies would spread mp3 files that appeared legit until you played them , then you 'd realize they were just 10-15sec pieces of the song looped over and over again .
It sounded good enough that if you used the " preview " feature many download clients had , it would sound like the real thing .
Some people thought that they had actually downloaded the real song ( quite understandable if you 're looking for Foo Fighters songs XD ) and complained that the new song was too repetitive , so bad reviews were spreading about the new albums .
Of course these days , torrent sites offer reviews and comments to prevent fake stuff from spreading , but other file sharing systems like Limewire do n't .
Hmm , I wonder why they stopped doing that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the earlier days of P2P file sharing (over Kazaa and similar networks).
The record companies would spread mp3 files that appeared legit until you played them, then you'd realize they were just 10-15sec pieces of the song looped over and over again.
It sounded good enough that if you used the "preview" feature many download clients had, it would sound like the real thing.
Some people thought that they had actually downloaded the real song (quite understandable if you're looking for Foo Fighters songs XD) and complained that the new song was too repetitive, so bad reviews were spreading about the new albums.
Of course these days, torrent sites offer reviews and comments to prevent fake stuff from spreading, but other file sharing systems like Limewire don't.
Hmm, I wonder why they stopped doing that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906207</id>
	<title>The mousetrap</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1256747340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This idea has been around forever - and it works.</p><p>The plagerist - the infringer - is almost by defintion a lazy son of a bitch. Reviewing text line-by-line. The movie frame-by-frame. That's hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea has been around forever - and it works.The plagerist - the infringer - is almost by defintion a lazy son of a bitch .
Reviewing text line-by-line .
The movie frame-by-frame .
That 's hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea has been around forever - and it works.The plagerist - the infringer - is almost by defintion a lazy son of a bitch.
Reviewing text line-by-line.
The movie frame-by-frame.
That's hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29914407</id>
	<title>Traitor Tracing</title>
	<author>TheOnyxRocket</author>
	<datestamp>1256846400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This method is a solution to the problem known in cryptographic circles as "Traitor Tracing."  The patent sounds awfully similar to the traitor tracing method used in Blu-ray discs and the old HD-DVD discs.  It's a capability of the system licensed by the AACS Licensing Authority for encrypt those discs.  Basically, they can substitute one of multiple short chunks of video at multiple places in the movie.  After a decrypted movie is released, they can figure out what system was compromised.  Interestingly, the traitor system has never been implemented, even though all licensed players must be able to handle it.  That's probably because the AACSLA knows what system was compromised - it's one of the software Blu-Ray players.</p><p>The software players are all identical.  The hardware players can be tracked down to a specific player.  Isn't that nice to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This method is a solution to the problem known in cryptographic circles as " Traitor Tracing .
" The patent sounds awfully similar to the traitor tracing method used in Blu-ray discs and the old HD-DVD discs .
It 's a capability of the system licensed by the AACS Licensing Authority for encrypt those discs .
Basically , they can substitute one of multiple short chunks of video at multiple places in the movie .
After a decrypted movie is released , they can figure out what system was compromised .
Interestingly , the traitor system has never been implemented , even though all licensed players must be able to handle it .
That 's probably because the AACSLA knows what system was compromised - it 's one of the software Blu-Ray players.The software players are all identical .
The hardware players can be tracked down to a specific player .
Is n't that nice to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This method is a solution to the problem known in cryptographic circles as "Traitor Tracing.
"  The patent sounds awfully similar to the traitor tracing method used in Blu-ray discs and the old HD-DVD discs.
It's a capability of the system licensed by the AACS Licensing Authority for encrypt those discs.
Basically, they can substitute one of multiple short chunks of video at multiple places in the movie.
After a decrypted movie is released, they can figure out what system was compromised.
Interestingly, the traitor system has never been implemented, even though all licensed players must be able to handle it.
That's probably because the AACSLA knows what system was compromised - it's one of the software Blu-Ray players.The software players are all identical.
The hardware players can be tracked down to a specific player.
Isn't that nice to know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906101</id>
	<title>So they patented paraphrasing?</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1256746380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow.... just, wow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow.... just , wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.... just, wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907117</id>
	<title>Is it actually legal? It's definitely wrong.</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1256757060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would the author consider this as some form of plagiarization?<br>After all, the author has probably only given them permission to distribute his work, not to distribute numerous altered versions.<br><br>For that matter, using synonyms can actually change the feel and meaning of a sentence when viewed in context of the whole.<br>And for documents relying on factual materials, quotes, and many sciences, swapping out words for synonyms will completely destroy the statements.<br>Just imagine this for your research, "Fermilabs has discovered a new capture that has a reel -3/4".<br><br>That just doesn't work, it's completely wrong, and should never be done, but is a real possibility with an inane patent like this one.<br>If Amazon actually starts doing that, they can kiss goodbye to sales from anyone who desires unmangled books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would the author consider this as some form of plagiarization ? After all , the author has probably only given them permission to distribute his work , not to distribute numerous altered versions.For that matter , using synonyms can actually change the feel and meaning of a sentence when viewed in context of the whole.And for documents relying on factual materials , quotes , and many sciences , swapping out words for synonyms will completely destroy the statements.Just imagine this for your research , " Fermilabs has discovered a new capture that has a reel -3/4 " .That just does n't work , it 's completely wrong , and should never be done , but is a real possibility with an inane patent like this one.If Amazon actually starts doing that , they can kiss goodbye to sales from anyone who desires unmangled books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would the author consider this as some form of plagiarization?After all, the author has probably only given them permission to distribute his work, not to distribute numerous altered versions.For that matter, using synonyms can actually change the feel and meaning of a sentence when viewed in context of the whole.And for documents relying on factual materials, quotes, and many sciences, swapping out words for synonyms will completely destroy the statements.Just imagine this for your research, "Fermilabs has discovered a new capture that has a reel -3/4".That just doesn't work, it's completely wrong, and should never be done, but is a real possibility with an inane patent like this one.If Amazon actually starts doing that, they can kiss goodbye to sales from anyone who desires unmangled books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906793</id>
	<title>Re:So any serious pirate group</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1256752920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't work, at least if they do it right, and the text is long enough. This is a form of steganography, and what you are proposing is actually hard to do. Imagine Amazon makes, say, 1024 changes in a text. Each change can be regarded as a binary bit (being either present or absent), so each text copy has a unique 128 byte number hidden in it. If Amazon gives out 4 million copies, that means they only need about 24 bits to uniquely identify any individual. If I get my hands on 5 copies, and can correct each error where the text differs (which I frankly doubt could be always done) then I am doing an AND on all of my 1024 bit numbers, leaving 32 bits intact, and Amazon could determine where all 5 copies came from.</p><p>If Amazon has information about who is likely to collude, they can make this even tougher by assigning codes based on this information. (For example, the first bit could be one for all Slashdot users, and zero otherwise, so no matter how many of us collude, Amazon could still say if the pirates came from Slashdot.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't work , at least if they do it right , and the text is long enough .
This is a form of steganography , and what you are proposing is actually hard to do .
Imagine Amazon makes , say , 1024 changes in a text .
Each change can be regarded as a binary bit ( being either present or absent ) , so each text copy has a unique 128 byte number hidden in it .
If Amazon gives out 4 million copies , that means they only need about 24 bits to uniquely identify any individual .
If I get my hands on 5 copies , and can correct each error where the text differs ( which I frankly doubt could be always done ) then I am doing an AND on all of my 1024 bit numbers , leaving 32 bits intact , and Amazon could determine where all 5 copies came from.If Amazon has information about who is likely to collude , they can make this even tougher by assigning codes based on this information .
( For example , the first bit could be one for all Slashdot users , and zero otherwise , so no matter how many of us collude , Amazon could still say if the pirates came from Slashdot .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't work, at least if they do it right, and the text is long enough.
This is a form of steganography, and what you are proposing is actually hard to do.
Imagine Amazon makes, say, 1024 changes in a text.
Each change can be regarded as a binary bit (being either present or absent), so each text copy has a unique 128 byte number hidden in it.
If Amazon gives out 4 million copies, that means they only need about 24 bits to uniquely identify any individual.
If I get my hands on 5 copies, and can correct each error where the text differs (which I frankly doubt could be always done) then I am doing an AND on all of my 1024 bit numbers, leaving 32 bits intact, and Amazon could determine where all 5 copies came from.If Amazon has information about who is likely to collude, they can make this even tougher by assigning codes based on this information.
(For example, the first bit could be one for all Slashdot users, and zero otherwise, so no matter how many of us collude, Amazon could still say if the pirates came from Slashdot.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907617</id>
	<title>Amazon, I dare you...</title>
	<author>ctrl-alt-canc</author>
	<datestamp>1256806860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to apply your patent to <a href="http://www.trentu.ca/faculty/jjoyce/" title="trentu.ca" rel="nofollow">this work</a> [trentu.ca].</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to apply your patent to this work [ trentu.ca ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to apply your patent to this work [trentu.ca].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29916159</id>
	<title>They stole my idea!</title>
	<author>GrantRobertson</author>
	<datestamp>1256809920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, I did think of this sometime around 2004. I may have posted something about it on Usenet. I will take a look. Others could search too. I have no idea what newsgroup I would have written it in, perhaps a Microsoft one. I have always used the name "Grant S. Robertson" for my Usenet posts. That should narrow things down a bit. Also, I thought of it in connection with publishing and distributing e-books, primarily in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.PDF form if that helps.</p><p>This is one of the reasons I have started my www.ideationizing.com blog. Simply to post my ideas which I don't expect to be able to work on, and thus provide prior art to stymie patents such as these. I urge everyone to blog and post as many ideas as they can think of. This seems to be the only way we are going to prevent the big corporations from patenting everything under the sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I did think of this sometime around 2004 .
I may have posted something about it on Usenet .
I will take a look .
Others could search too .
I have no idea what newsgroup I would have written it in , perhaps a Microsoft one .
I have always used the name " Grant S. Robertson " for my Usenet posts .
That should narrow things down a bit .
Also , I thought of it in connection with publishing and distributing e-books , primarily in .PDF form if that helps.This is one of the reasons I have started my www.ideationizing.com blog .
Simply to post my ideas which I do n't expect to be able to work on , and thus provide prior art to stymie patents such as these .
I urge everyone to blog and post as many ideas as they can think of .
This seems to be the only way we are going to prevent the big corporations from patenting everything under the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I did think of this sometime around 2004.
I may have posted something about it on Usenet.
I will take a look.
Others could search too.
I have no idea what newsgroup I would have written it in, perhaps a Microsoft one.
I have always used the name "Grant S. Robertson" for my Usenet posts.
That should narrow things down a bit.
Also, I thought of it in connection with publishing and distributing e-books, primarily in .PDF form if that helps.This is one of the reasons I have started my www.ideationizing.com blog.
Simply to post my ideas which I don't expect to be able to work on, and thus provide prior art to stymie patents such as these.
I urge everyone to blog and post as many ideas as they can think of.
This seems to be the only way we are going to prevent the big corporations from patenting everything under the sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906121</id>
	<title>Bezos principal</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256746560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The new Bezos contest: Who can be more evil</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new Bezos contest : Who can be more evil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new Bezos contest: Who can be more evil</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29922675</id>
	<title>Copyright Violation?</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1256911560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this would be copyright violoation on Amazon's part.</p><p>They are making unauthorized derivative works.  They may (and probably do) have authorization to distribute copies of the original work, but that in no way includes the right to create a derivative work and sell that.  Such minimal substitution as they do in no way would constitute a new work, at all.</p><p>Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps this is incorrect, but it seems accurate at first glance to me.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this would be copyright violoation on Amazon 's part.They are making unauthorized derivative works .
They may ( and probably do ) have authorization to distribute copies of the original work , but that in no way includes the right to create a derivative work and sell that .
Such minimal substitution as they do in no way would constitute a new work , at all.Of course , I 'm not a lawyer , so perhaps this is incorrect , but it seems accurate at first glance to me .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this would be copyright violoation on Amazon's part.They are making unauthorized derivative works.
They may (and probably do) have authorization to distribute copies of the original work, but that in no way includes the right to create a derivative work and sell that.
Such minimal substitution as they do in no way would constitute a new work, at all.Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps this is incorrect, but it seems accurate at first glance to me.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907299</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I like the thing with the maps because it is the kind of thing that makes the violator look like a complete idiot, and it's impossible to defend in court.</i> </p><p>Maybe amongst a cabal of corps or collaborators who have signed NDAs and have large economic interests.  If it is a book or bits of data purchased for $1 there will be many defenses:</p><p> - the device (netbook, phone, PC) is not always in my posession</p><p> - Amazon itself had access to the watermarked copy</p><p> - I noticed strange spelling errors in my Shakespear and wanted errors to be found and criticized online (fair use)</p><p> - My share***** whatever got hacked</p><p>In fact, I think Amazon would need a few things for a solid case including both the origin of the copy and evidence that that copy owner is actively sharing it (i.e., not just the root source).  They also may need access to the sharing device (Limewire folder or something) or an outright confession.  It could be they use this to zap somebody's Kindle account and seek an out-of-court settlement like the RIAA.  Much beyond that, and it is tough going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the thing with the maps because it is the kind of thing that makes the violator look like a complete idiot , and it 's impossible to defend in court .
Maybe amongst a cabal of corps or collaborators who have signed NDAs and have large economic interests .
If it is a book or bits of data purchased for $ 1 there will be many defenses : - the device ( netbook , phone , PC ) is not always in my posession - Amazon itself had access to the watermarked copy - I noticed strange spelling errors in my Shakespear and wanted errors to be found and criticized online ( fair use ) - My share * * * * * whatever got hackedIn fact , I think Amazon would need a few things for a solid case including both the origin of the copy and evidence that that copy owner is actively sharing it ( i.e. , not just the root source ) .
They also may need access to the sharing device ( Limewire folder or something ) or an outright confession .
It could be they use this to zap somebody 's Kindle account and seek an out-of-court settlement like the RIAA .
Much beyond that , and it is tough going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the thing with the maps because it is the kind of thing that makes the violator look like a complete idiot, and it's impossible to defend in court.
Maybe amongst a cabal of corps or collaborators who have signed NDAs and have large economic interests.
If it is a book or bits of data purchased for $1 there will be many defenses: - the device (netbook, phone, PC) is not always in my posession - Amazon itself had access to the watermarked copy - I noticed strange spelling errors in my Shakespear and wanted errors to be found and criticized online (fair use) - My share***** whatever got hackedIn fact, I think Amazon would need a few things for a solid case including both the origin of the copy and evidence that that copy owner is actively sharing it (i.e., not just the root source).
They also may need access to the sharing device (Limewire folder or something) or an outright confession.
It could be they use this to zap somebody's Kindle account and seek an out-of-court settlement like the RIAA.
Much beyond that, and it is tough going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905833</id>
	<title>From an author's perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256744280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know about this patent. They're trying to patent adding advertising into ebooks that they sell. Want to read Old Man and the Sea? Get ready for Hooters advertisements selling oysters in the page. It's sick.</p><p>I refuse to sell my ebooks through Amazon because of bullshit like this. Yes, I'm probably shooting myself in the bank for doing it, but I feel as if I should retain some integrity.</p><p>I'd rather the world pirate my ebooks, at least YOU, the reader will respect them better than Amazon will for a buck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know about this patent .
They 're trying to patent adding advertising into ebooks that they sell .
Want to read Old Man and the Sea ?
Get ready for Hooters advertisements selling oysters in the page .
It 's sick.I refuse to sell my ebooks through Amazon because of bullshit like this .
Yes , I 'm probably shooting myself in the bank for doing it , but I feel as if I should retain some integrity.I 'd rather the world pirate my ebooks , at least YOU , the reader will respect them better than Amazon will for a buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know about this patent.
They're trying to patent adding advertising into ebooks that they sell.
Want to read Old Man and the Sea?
Get ready for Hooters advertisements selling oysters in the page.
It's sick.I refuse to sell my ebooks through Amazon because of bullshit like this.
Yes, I'm probably shooting myself in the bank for doing it, but I feel as if I should retain some integrity.I'd rather the world pirate my ebooks, at least YOU, the reader will respect them better than Amazon will for a buck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907627</id>
	<title>Re:Not a Wise Practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256807040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heck, it's already been done with books. Remember "Trivial Pursuit"? Back in 1984 a guy named Fred Worth inserted false "facts" into a series of trivia books he had written. When one of his little gotchas turned up as one of the questions on a "Trivial Pursuit" card, Worth leapt eagerly into the legal fray, hoping to sue for millions. He chased his claim all the way up to the Supreme Court, but was rejected again and again (as it turns out you can't copyright facts).</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial\_Pursuit#Fred\_Worth\_lawsuit [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , it 's already been done with books .
Remember " Trivial Pursuit " ?
Back in 1984 a guy named Fred Worth inserted false " facts " into a series of trivia books he had written .
When one of his little gotchas turned up as one of the questions on a " Trivial Pursuit " card , Worth leapt eagerly into the legal fray , hoping to sue for millions .
He chased his claim all the way up to the Supreme Court , but was rejected again and again ( as it turns out you ca n't copyright facts ) .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial \ _Pursuit # Fred \ _Worth \ _lawsuit [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, it's already been done with books.
Remember "Trivial Pursuit"?
Back in 1984 a guy named Fred Worth inserted false "facts" into a series of trivia books he had written.
When one of his little gotchas turned up as one of the questions on a "Trivial Pursuit" card, Worth leapt eagerly into the legal fray, hoping to sue for millions.
He chased his claim all the way up to the Supreme Court, but was rejected again and again (as it turns out you can't copyright facts).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial\_Pursuit#Fred\_Worth\_lawsuit [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910021</id>
	<title>as if it would really help</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1256830080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you REALLY wanted to copy and distro it, just buy it with three accounts.  Do a simple compare and find the few words changed, and rebuild the original and distribute that instead.</p><p>This approach doesn't work for maps for several reasons, but would be ideal for books.</p><p>I've already seen this in action where watermarks are placed on digital software downloads.  Just a matter of obtaining it from two different sources and comparing the two to find out where the watermark is.  Then either remove it or change it to something else.  One of these days they'll get smart and start signing it after they watermark it, but that's processor expensive so guessing they don't feel quite that motivated yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you REALLY wanted to copy and distro it , just buy it with three accounts .
Do a simple compare and find the few words changed , and rebuild the original and distribute that instead.This approach does n't work for maps for several reasons , but would be ideal for books.I 've already seen this in action where watermarks are placed on digital software downloads .
Just a matter of obtaining it from two different sources and comparing the two to find out where the watermark is .
Then either remove it or change it to something else .
One of these days they 'll get smart and start signing it after they watermark it , but that 's processor expensive so guessing they do n't feel quite that motivated yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you REALLY wanted to copy and distro it, just buy it with three accounts.
Do a simple compare and find the few words changed, and rebuild the original and distribute that instead.This approach doesn't work for maps for several reasons, but would be ideal for books.I've already seen this in action where watermarks are placed on digital software downloads.
Just a matter of obtaining it from two different sources and comparing the two to find out where the watermark is.
Then either remove it or change it to something else.
One of these days they'll get smart and start signing it after they watermark it, but that's processor expensive so guessing they don't feel quite that motivated yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29915121</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256849340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really does not work in this case.  A smart system uses many such variations with overlap enough to pinpoint the source even with a partial copy.   That means even if you have a few copies from different sources you may see only a small percentage of the "changes" -- where other "changes" are the same in those copies but still different from the source.  While not always down to 1-to-1 with a source these modifications will allow the possible sources to be identified to a very limited number.  Either way,  this type of trick has been used for decades -- down to hand typed documents.  I would find it hard to belive that amazon could last one prior-art round with this "invention".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really does not work in this case .
A smart system uses many such variations with overlap enough to pinpoint the source even with a partial copy .
That means even if you have a few copies from different sources you may see only a small percentage of the " changes " -- where other " changes " are the same in those copies but still different from the source .
While not always down to 1-to-1 with a source these modifications will allow the possible sources to be identified to a very limited number .
Either way , this type of trick has been used for decades -- down to hand typed documents .
I would find it hard to belive that amazon could last one prior-art round with this " invention " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really does not work in this case.
A smart system uses many such variations with overlap enough to pinpoint the source even with a partial copy.
That means even if you have a few copies from different sources you may see only a small percentage of the "changes" -- where other "changes" are the same in those copies but still different from the source.
While not always down to 1-to-1 with a source these modifications will allow the possible sources to be identified to a very limited number.
Either way,  this type of trick has been used for decades -- down to hand typed documents.
I would find it hard to belive that amazon could last one prior-art round with this "invention".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905857</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256744400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prior Art in every creative writing class since, oh I don't know 500 years ago.  Certainly a dozen generations before Shakespeare.  Thanks Amazon, for taking a great way to be creative, and fucking kill it,  claiming this form of creativity, done by others, all belongs to you, Rat Bastards.  Well I'm not paying!  If you try to sue, I'll sue your ass!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prior Art in every creative writing class since , oh I do n't know 500 years ago .
Certainly a dozen generations before Shakespeare .
Thanks Amazon , for taking a great way to be creative , and fucking kill it , claiming this form of creativity , done by others , all belongs to you , Rat Bastards .
Well I 'm not paying !
If you try to sue , I 'll sue your ass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prior Art in every creative writing class since, oh I don't know 500 years ago.
Certainly a dozen generations before Shakespeare.
Thanks Amazon, for taking a great way to be creative, and fucking kill it,  claiming this form of creativity, done by others, all belongs to you, Rat Bastards.
Well I'm not paying!
If you try to sue, I'll sue your ass!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907455</id>
	<title>Re:So any serious pirate group</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1256847360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However,<br>I think I see a problem here.</p><p>What I can get out of both books, is the words where everything is the same, and the words which differ.</p><p>Now I can modify the words that differ to a new value and I can correct any spelling or grammar errors.</p><p>So<br>XYXXXXXDXXXX22XXXXXXYXXXXXX<br>XYXZXXXXXXXXXXXX11XXYXXXXEX<br>becomes<br>XXX?XXX?XXXX2XX1XXYXXXXXX where Y is a code but I can't tell because its the same in both books.  1 &amp; 2 are trivial duplicate word sets ( "the the" on a page boundary for example).  E is a spelling error easily fixed.</p><p>It seems that, at best, your 24 bits would identify a set of books, but not an individual book.  Because- ANY differences are wiped out.  So the only information that survives are bit values that were the same in both books.</p><p>What am I not seeing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However,I think I see a problem here.What I can get out of both books , is the words where everything is the same , and the words which differ.Now I can modify the words that differ to a new value and I can correct any spelling or grammar errors.SoXYXXXXXDXXXX22XXXXXXYXXXXXXXYXZXXXXXXXXXXXX11XXYXXXXEXbecomesXXX ? XXX ? XXXX2XX1XXYXXXXXX where Y is a code but I ca n't tell because its the same in both books .
1 &amp; 2 are trivial duplicate word sets ( " the the " on a page boundary for example ) .
E is a spelling error easily fixed.It seems that , at best , your 24 bits would identify a set of books , but not an individual book .
Because- ANY differences are wiped out .
So the only information that survives are bit values that were the same in both books.What am I not seeing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However,I think I see a problem here.What I can get out of both books, is the words where everything is the same, and the words which differ.Now I can modify the words that differ to a new value and I can correct any spelling or grammar errors.SoXYXXXXXDXXXX22XXXXXXYXXXXXXXYXZXXXXXXXXXXXX11XXYXXXXEXbecomesXXX?XXX?XXXX2XX1XXYXXXXXX where Y is a code but I can't tell because its the same in both books.
1 &amp; 2 are trivial duplicate word sets ( "the the" on a page boundary for example).
E is a spelling error easily fixed.It seems that, at best, your 24 bits would identify a set of books, but not an individual book.
Because- ANY differences are wiped out.
So the only information that survives are bit values that were the same in both books.What am I not seeing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905843</id>
	<title>If I was an author . . .</title>
	<author>Tanman</author>
	<datestamp>1256744340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I was an author who had slaved a year over a book, and anyone but my editor (with my approval on each change) altered my precious words and distributed it as my work, I'd sue the pants off of them.  It'd be like if someone was selling prints of my painting and changing a brush stroke.  You just don't do that.  Words are the author's paint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was an author who had slaved a year over a book , and anyone but my editor ( with my approval on each change ) altered my precious words and distributed it as my work , I 'd sue the pants off of them .
It 'd be like if someone was selling prints of my painting and changing a brush stroke .
You just do n't do that .
Words are the author 's paint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was an author who had slaved a year over a book, and anyone but my editor (with my approval on each change) altered my precious words and distributed it as my work, I'd sue the pants off of them.
It'd be like if someone was selling prints of my painting and changing a brush stroke.
You just don't do that.
Words are the author's paint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906053</id>
	<title>It was already done decades ago with log tables.</title>
	<author>hendrikboom</author>
	<datestamp>1256746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even tables of logarithms have been doing this ages ago.  The preface in one table informs us that a few places where the suppressed digit is a 5, the table entry is rounded in the wrong direction.  This slightly increases the potential error from 1/2 of the least significant digit to something like 0.55 of the least significant digit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even tables of logarithms have been doing this ages ago .
The preface in one table informs us that a few places where the suppressed digit is a 5 , the table entry is rounded in the wrong direction .
This slightly increases the potential error from 1/2 of the least significant digit to something like 0.55 of the least significant digit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even tables of logarithms have been doing this ages ago.
The preface in one table informs us that a few places where the suppressed digit is a 5, the table entry is rounded in the wrong direction.
This slightly increases the potential error from 1/2 of the least significant digit to something like 0.55 of the least significant digit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912735</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256839860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this.  Patents cover implementations, and not ideas.  Some have argued that the line has been blurred with certain classes of patents, but it hasn't blurred so far that the concept in the slashdot summary is actually locked up as IP.</p></div><p>Admittedly, I only glossed over the claims, but this looks like the classic "...with a computer" type of patent whose legitimacy is up before SCOTUS. If you scan the text, you will find where it states <i>"While the invention is described herein by way of example for several embodiments and illustrative drawings, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention is not limited to the embodiments or drawings described. It should be understood, that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit the invention to the particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims."</i> -- they're not describing any <b>implementation</b> at all, they're describing the <b>idea</b> of having a general-purpose computer do it with software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But no , they did not patent * doing * this , they patented the * way * that they do this .
Patents cover implementations , and not ideas .
Some have argued that the line has been blurred with certain classes of patents , but it has n't blurred so far that the concept in the slashdot summary is actually locked up as IP.Admittedly , I only glossed over the claims , but this looks like the classic " ...with a computer " type of patent whose legitimacy is up before SCOTUS .
If you scan the text , you will find where it states " While the invention is described herein by way of example for several embodiments and illustrative drawings , those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention is not limited to the embodiments or drawings described .
It should be understood , that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit the invention to the particular form disclosed , but on the contrary , the intention is to cover all modifications , equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims .
" -- they 're not describing any implementation at all , they 're describing the idea of having a general-purpose computer do it with software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this.
Patents cover implementations, and not ideas.
Some have argued that the line has been blurred with certain classes of patents, but it hasn't blurred so far that the concept in the slashdot summary is actually locked up as IP.Admittedly, I only glossed over the claims, but this looks like the classic "...with a computer" type of patent whose legitimacy is up before SCOTUS.
If you scan the text, you will find where it states "While the invention is described herein by way of example for several embodiments and illustrative drawings, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention is not limited to the embodiments or drawings described.
It should be understood, that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit the invention to the particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims.
" -- they're not describing any implementation at all, they're describing the idea of having a general-purpose computer do it with software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908559</id>
	<title>Can you imagine this in technical books?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will REALLY suck for the technical books, though!  What if it ends up changing the content of an example computer program or something similar, where close just <i>isn't</i> good enough?  And how are scholars supposed to cite something if every version is different?</p><p>One little word can completely change a quote.  All I can say is that this idea is positively [moronic|imbecilic|ridiculous|horrible|stupid].*</p><p>*Depending on which version of Slashdot you're paying for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will REALLY suck for the technical books , though !
What if it ends up changing the content of an example computer program or something similar , where close just is n't good enough ?
And how are scholars supposed to cite something if every version is different ? One little word can completely change a quote .
All I can say is that this idea is positively [ moronic | imbecilic | ridiculous | horrible | stupid ] .
* * Depending on which version of Slashdot you 're paying for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will REALLY suck for the technical books, though!
What if it ends up changing the content of an example computer program or something similar, where close just isn't good enough?
And how are scholars supposed to cite something if every version is different?One little word can completely change a quote.
All I can say is that this idea is positively [moronic|imbecilic|ridiculous|horrible|stupid].
**Depending on which version of Slashdot you're paying for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905917</id>
	<title>No. Prior art.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256744820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This exact same thing was demonstrated in Kijk magazine over ten years ago (when I still subscribed to it) as a stenography method. It used the Microsoft-and-the-pilot joke as an example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This exact same thing was demonstrated in Kijk magazine over ten years ago ( when I still subscribed to it ) as a stenography method .
It used the Microsoft-and-the-pilot joke as an example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This exact same thing was demonstrated in Kijk magazine over ten years ago (when I still subscribed to it) as a stenography method.
It used the Microsoft-and-the-pilot joke as an example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905639</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256743020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  On 9/11/2001 the Twin Towers were attacked By terrorists.  In November 2001 President Gore declared war on Afghanistan.</p></div><p>   Hmmm.  There appears to be something wrong with my history book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On 9/11/2001 the Twin Towers were attacked By terrorists .
In November 2001 President Gore declared war on Afghanistan .
Hmmm. There appears to be something wrong with my history book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  On 9/11/2001 the Twin Towers were attacked By terrorists.
In November 2001 President Gore declared war on Afghanistan.
Hmmm.  There appears to be something wrong with my history book.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555</id>
	<title>Re:It's not about the patent, it's about the lying</title>
	<author>Techmeology</author>
	<datestamp>1256849100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pirates can work together. Suppose you have ten pirates. They each download a copy of the book. They then compare their copies with each other - crosschecking them (after, of course, stripping the DRM). Nine of the ten books use "to be or not to be", and one uses "to exist or not to exist", and similarly for other words. They may then produce a more accurate copy of the book. So now, instead of pirate versions being technically superior (due to the lack of DRM), they're also more accurate! Well done, Amazon, you've patented a wonderful scheme to ensure people don't trust genuine products! Normally I am very anti-intellectual property. On this occasion, however, I do hope Amazon is granted it and enforces it. Perhaps it would some day prevent someone else doing the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pirates can work together .
Suppose you have ten pirates .
They each download a copy of the book .
They then compare their copies with each other - crosschecking them ( after , of course , stripping the DRM ) .
Nine of the ten books use " to be or not to be " , and one uses " to exist or not to exist " , and similarly for other words .
They may then produce a more accurate copy of the book .
So now , instead of pirate versions being technically superior ( due to the lack of DRM ) , they 're also more accurate !
Well done , Amazon , you 've patented a wonderful scheme to ensure people do n't trust genuine products !
Normally I am very anti-intellectual property .
On this occasion , however , I do hope Amazon is granted it and enforces it .
Perhaps it would some day prevent someone else doing the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pirates can work together.
Suppose you have ten pirates.
They each download a copy of the book.
They then compare their copies with each other - crosschecking them (after, of course, stripping the DRM).
Nine of the ten books use "to be or not to be", and one uses "to exist or not to exist", and similarly for other words.
They may then produce a more accurate copy of the book.
So now, instead of pirate versions being technically superior (due to the lack of DRM), they're also more accurate!
Well done, Amazon, you've patented a wonderful scheme to ensure people don't trust genuine products!
Normally I am very anti-intellectual property.
On this occasion, however, I do hope Amazon is granted it and enforces it.
Perhaps it would some day prevent someone else doing the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</id>
	<title>Patentable?</title>
	<author>OnlyPostsWhilstDrunk</author>
	<datestamp>1256741520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This bugs me about patents. This sounds like an exact copy of what they've done with maps for years. They add/remove/rename tiny roads in the middle of nowhere and if you distribute maps with those roads then they know you copied their stuff.<br> <br>
Everything is a damn patent these days. Yo dawg, I put a clock in your clock so I can sue you while you check the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This bugs me about patents .
This sounds like an exact copy of what they 've done with maps for years .
They add/remove/rename tiny roads in the middle of nowhere and if you distribute maps with those roads then they know you copied their stuff .
Everything is a damn patent these days .
Yo dawg , I put a clock in your clock so I can sue you while you check the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bugs me about patents.
This sounds like an exact copy of what they've done with maps for years.
They add/remove/rename tiny roads in the middle of nowhere and if you distribute maps with those roads then they know you copied their stuff.
Everything is a damn patent these days.
Yo dawg, I put a clock in your clock so I can sue you while you check the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907551</id>
	<title>hair splitting</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1256849040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this.</i></p><p>You're incorrectly assuming that a common shorthand for talking about those kinds of patents implies ignorance of the patent system.</p><p>To spell it out for you: the "way" they patented this is an obvious engineering solution to the actual problem they are trying to solve.  If you gave the problem of "alter the text so that each customer gets a unique copy" to a CS undergraduate, this is the kind of engineering solution they'd come up with.</p><p>(Actually, the first engineering solution they'd come up with is to alter the whitespace.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But no , they did not patent * doing * this , they patented the * way * that they do this.You 're incorrectly assuming that a common shorthand for talking about those kinds of patents implies ignorance of the patent system.To spell it out for you : the " way " they patented this is an obvious engineering solution to the actual problem they are trying to solve .
If you gave the problem of " alter the text so that each customer gets a unique copy " to a CS undergraduate , this is the kind of engineering solution they 'd come up with .
( Actually , the first engineering solution they 'd come up with is to alter the whitespace .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this.You're incorrectly assuming that a common shorthand for talking about those kinds of patents implies ignorance of the patent system.To spell it out for you: the "way" they patented this is an obvious engineering solution to the actual problem they are trying to solve.
If you gave the problem of "alter the text so that each customer gets a unique copy" to a CS undergraduate, this is the kind of engineering solution they'd come up with.
(Actually, the first engineering solution they'd come up with is to alter the whitespace.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29915471</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>radicalrendell</author>
	<datestamp>1256807400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, Amazon can put to use their secret warehouse full of monkeys and typewriters!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , Amazon can put to use their secret warehouse full of monkeys and typewriters !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, Amazon can put to use their secret warehouse full of monkeys and typewriters!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909879</id>
	<title>Canary Trap</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1256829480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The canary trap is easily defeated by rewriting leaks in "your own" words.<br> <br>
Just summarize the classified document in a writing style randomly similar and dissimilar to your own writing style.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The canary trap is easily defeated by rewriting leaks in " your own " words .
Just summarize the classified document in a writing style randomly similar and dissimilar to your own writing style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The canary trap is easily defeated by rewriting leaks in "your own" words.
Just summarize the classified document in a writing style randomly similar and dissimilar to your own writing style.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908025</id>
	<title>Re:So any serious pirate group</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1256813400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So get your hands on 6 copies. Or 20 copies. Or set up your pirate distribution system so that it keeps adding books to the pot and end up with over 1000 copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So get your hands on 6 copies .
Or 20 copies .
Or set up your pirate distribution system so that it keeps adding books to the pot and end up with over 1000 copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So get your hands on 6 copies.
Or 20 copies.
Or set up your pirate distribution system so that it keeps adding books to the pot and end up with over 1000 copies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907517</id>
	<title>This patent guarantee's I'll never buy one</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1256848140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now you can be tracked via your book! What a great idea if you're Big Brother! If you're a reader this should put a last nail in the coffin of electronic books. Anyone who buys an ebook now is an idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you can be tracked via your book !
What a great idea if you 're Big Brother !
If you 're a reader this should put a last nail in the coffin of electronic books .
Anyone who buys an ebook now is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you can be tracked via your book!
What a great idea if you're Big Brother!
If you're a reader this should put a last nail in the coffin of electronic books.
Anyone who buys an ebook now is an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908049</id>
	<title>Derivative work...</title>
	<author>Kindaian</author>
	<datestamp>1256813760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By changing the work, as it's in an intended form (as they make sure the change happens on purpose), so they are really creating a derivative work.</p><p>That is not a typo... it's a intended change on purpose.</p><p>Did they have the author authorization for doing such and at the same time imply that the author doesn't know how to write???</p><p>I hardly believe that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By changing the work , as it 's in an intended form ( as they make sure the change happens on purpose ) , so they are really creating a derivative work.That is not a typo... it 's a intended change on purpose.Did they have the author authorization for doing such and at the same time imply that the author does n't know how to write ? ?
? I hardly believe that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By changing the work, as it's in an intended form (as they make sure the change happens on purpose), so they are really creating a derivative work.That is not a typo... it's a intended change on purpose.Did they have the author authorization for doing such and at the same time imply that the author doesn't know how to write??
?I hardly believe that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909093</id>
	<title>Re:The Authorized Amazon Version of The Bible</title>
	<author>sheph</author>
	<datestamp>1256825700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows the NIV is the only true Word of God, and all other works proclaiming the nature of God are a product of the devil and must be destroyed.



(yes I'm kidding, just in case you missed it)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows the NIV is the only true Word of God , and all other works proclaiming the nature of God are a product of the devil and must be destroyed .
( yes I 'm kidding , just in case you missed it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows the NIV is the only true Word of God, and all other works proclaiming the nature of God are a product of the devil and must be destroyed.
(yes I'm kidding, just in case you missed it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906451</id>
	<title>Rollovers prior art</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1256749500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They essentially patented rollovers, the kind you get with an HTML "title" attribute used with Div, Span, etc. If not, then just use "title" as a work-around. (Not all browsers support it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They essentially patented rollovers , the kind you get with an HTML " title " attribute used with Div , Span , etc .
If not , then just use " title " as a work-around .
( Not all browsers support it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They essentially patented rollovers, the kind you get with an HTML "title" attribute used with Div, Span, etc.
If not, then just use "title" as a work-around.
(Not all browsers support it.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29960106</id>
	<title>Re:How did this get through</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not new and not obvious.  It is a method to do something that is already known.   At best it protects the product from a clone that defeats it.</p><p>It seems flawed to me based on Copyright law as I know it.  If they do not publish a true version of the work then lots of things go sideways.</p><p>Mostly I think that a hard copy, spell checker and three or more copies can defeat the purpose of the process to the point that the resulting stolen product can no longer be  tracked back to a single purchase for prosecution.</p><p>And another vendors method to watermark the document would further complicate the issue.</p><p>Lastly I honestly believe but do not know that there is a "Classified Top Secret" method to this end and the men in grey coats will be knocking on the doors of Amazon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not new and not obvious .
It is a method to do something that is already known .
At best it protects the product from a clone that defeats it.It seems flawed to me based on Copyright law as I know it .
If they do not publish a true version of the work then lots of things go sideways.Mostly I think that a hard copy , spell checker and three or more copies can defeat the purpose of the process to the point that the resulting stolen product can no longer be tracked back to a single purchase for prosecution.And another vendors method to watermark the document would further complicate the issue.Lastly I honestly believe but do not know that there is a " Classified Top Secret " method to this end and the men in grey coats will be knocking on the doors of Amazon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not new and not obvious.
It is a method to do something that is already known.
At best it protects the product from a clone that defeats it.It seems flawed to me based on Copyright law as I know it.
If they do not publish a true version of the work then lots of things go sideways.Mostly I think that a hard copy, spell checker and three or more copies can defeat the purpose of the process to the point that the resulting stolen product can no longer be  tracked back to a single purchase for prosecution.And another vendors method to watermark the document would further complicate the issue.Lastly I honestly believe but do not know that there is a "Classified Top Secret" method to this end and the men in grey coats will be knocking on the doors of Amazon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910855</id>
	<title>Re:It's not about the patent, it's about the lying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256833140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But at least now they get ten total sales instead of just one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But at least now they get ten total sales instead of just one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But at least now they get ten total sales instead of just one...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905941</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aww come on. This is the smuckin fartest invention ever!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aww come on .
This is the smuckin fartest invention ever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aww come on.
This is the smuckin fartest invention ever!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29925315</id>
	<title>Greed</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1256923560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These greedy bastrds would destroy art and literature for just one more buck...</htmltext>
<tokenext>These greedy bastrds would destroy art and literature for just one more buck.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These greedy bastrds would destroy art and literature for just one more buck...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907219</id>
	<title>idiots</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1256758200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, this is, of course, a copyright infringement itself because Amazon does not hold copyright on the books it sells, the authors and/or distributors do.</p><p>Two, it's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. One, it will not stop piracy in the least. Contrary to the Canary Trap already pointed out in comments, e-book pirates will very much have access to several versions of the book. A simple diff will fish out the "key" words. Then you can mix them so that at least they don't point to any of your actual sources.</p><p>Three, it's another example of reducing the quality of your product in order to max your profits. Also known as "punishing the honest customer". That's a really good idea... not!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , this is , of course , a copyright infringement itself because Amazon does not hold copyright on the books it sells , the authors and/or distributors do.Two , it 's the dumbest thing I 've heard in a long time .
One , it will not stop piracy in the least .
Contrary to the Canary Trap already pointed out in comments , e-book pirates will very much have access to several versions of the book .
A simple diff will fish out the " key " words .
Then you can mix them so that at least they do n't point to any of your actual sources.Three , it 's another example of reducing the quality of your product in order to max your profits .
Also known as " punishing the honest customer " .
That 's a really good idea... not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, this is, of course, a copyright infringement itself because Amazon does not hold copyright on the books it sells, the authors and/or distributors do.Two, it's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.
One, it will not stop piracy in the least.
Contrary to the Canary Trap already pointed out in comments, e-book pirates will very much have access to several versions of the book.
A simple diff will fish out the "key" words.
Then you can mix them so that at least they don't point to any of your actual sources.Three, it's another example of reducing the quality of your product in order to max your profits.
Also known as "punishing the honest customer".
That's a really good idea... not!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908685</id>
	<title>Loving my flatbed scanner more now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256822640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me, it just seems that one should simply NOT BUY Amazon's e-books... I have always aquired/bought at discount book stores my faves.. sometimes two... if I need em on a device, I scan them, seed them, and you might get them.. Enjoy</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , it just seems that one should simply NOT BUY Amazon 's e-books... I have always aquired/bought at discount book stores my faves.. sometimes two... if I need em on a device , I scan them , seed them , and you might get them.. Enjoy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, it just seems that one should simply NOT BUY Amazon's e-books... I have always aquired/bought at discount book stores my faves.. sometimes two... if I need em on a device, I scan them, seed them, and you might get them.. Enjoy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906485</id>
	<title>The King James... hah!</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1256749920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love King James-ers.   Usually what I do is first hand them a scan from a 1611 KJV and ask them to read it.  They can't.  What people call the "King James" version today is actually the early 19th century revision of the King James version.  Second, I have them read the preface to the KJV, which says specifically that new translations will be needed.  That usually shuts 'em up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love King James-ers .
Usually what I do is first hand them a scan from a 1611 KJV and ask them to read it .
They ca n't .
What people call the " King James " version today is actually the early 19th century revision of the King James version .
Second , I have them read the preface to the KJV , which says specifically that new translations will be needed .
That usually shuts 'em up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love King James-ers.
Usually what I do is first hand them a scan from a 1611 KJV and ask them to read it.
They can't.
What people call the "King James" version today is actually the early 19th century revision of the King James version.
Second, I have them read the preface to the KJV, which says specifically that new translations will be needed.
That usually shuts 'em up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910299</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>aitikin</author>
	<datestamp>1256831100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm 95\% certain that a music publishing company has been doing this for decades.  I don't remember which company off hand, but on every page there is one wrong note.  It's a very respectable company as I recall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 95 \ % certain that a music publishing company has been doing this for decades .
I do n't remember which company off hand , but on every page there is one wrong note .
It 's a very respectable company as I recall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 95\% certain that a music publishing company has been doing this for decades.
I don't remember which company off hand, but on every page there is one wrong note.
It's a very respectable company as I recall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909399</id>
	<title>Derivative work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely this counts as a deriviative work, and as suck breaks copyright?  Okay, not on Shakespeare, but on Dan Brown for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely this counts as a deriviative work , and as suck breaks copyright ?
Okay , not on Shakespeare , but on Dan Brown for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely this counts as a deriviative work, and as suck breaks copyright?
Okay, not on Shakespeare, but on Dan Brown for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912907</id>
	<title>Re:Prior art</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1256840460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or get multiple copies and do a diff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
this whole thing is SO not original<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... or get multiple copies and do a diff .. . this whole thing is SO not original .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... or get multiple copies and do a diff ...

this whole thing is SO not original ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907147</id>
	<title>Re:Birth of the Anti-Wiki?</title>
	<author>bhsbulldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1256757540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Soviet Russia, Wiki edits you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , Wiki edits you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, Wiki edits you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908591</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>RedWizzard</author>
	<datestamp>1256821500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like the thing with the maps because it is the kind of thing that makes the violator look like a complete idiot</p></div><p>OTOH the map maker dosen't look that flash to all the users who notice the mistakes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the thing with the maps because it is the kind of thing that makes the violator look like a complete idiotOTOH the map maker dose n't look that flash to all the users who notice the mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the thing with the maps because it is the kind of thing that makes the violator look like a complete idiotOTOH the map maker dosen't look that flash to all the users who notice the mistakes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29915869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29913373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29916159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29916561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29913459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29960106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29915121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2236235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29960106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907895
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912427
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29915121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910181
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29915869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909593
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29913373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907555
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908989
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909665
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908497
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910679
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910855
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29913459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29910021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905567
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905705
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906257
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29916159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29916561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29912169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29908559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29905755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29909325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29906279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2236235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2236235.29907401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
