<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_12_162242</id>
	<title>MPAA Asks Again For Control Of TV Analog Ports</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258043340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from the Consumerist:
<i>"The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they <a href="http://consumerist.com/5400626/mpaa-asks-fcc-for-control-of-your-tvs-analog-outputs">don't want anyone potentially streaming that video</a> out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-shapiro/dear-fcc-please-dont-let\_b\_355191.html">ask for the power to disable analog ports</a> on consumer television sets. This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003. SOC would allow 'service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs' such as HDMI. The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from the Consumerist : " The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window , but they do n't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances .
That 's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets .
This capability is called selectable output control or SOC , and the FCC banned it back in 2003 .
SOC would allow 'service operators , such as cable companies , to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices , only allowing digital plugs ' such as HDMI .
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from the Consumerist:
"The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances.
That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets.
This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003.
SOC would allow 'service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs' such as HDMI.
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074530</id>
	<title>Re:Much Ado About MPAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258049100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't get it. It's NOT their movies they want to control, it's MY TV. If it was just their movie, fine, put a label on it. I don't have to buy it. What they are trying to do is force ALL TV manufacturers to give THEM control over what can be recorded and how. That is not the same thing as just not buying their movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't get it .
It 's NOT their movies they want to control , it 's MY TV .
If it was just their movie , fine , put a label on it .
I do n't have to buy it .
What they are trying to do is force ALL TV manufacturers to give THEM control over what can be recorded and how .
That is not the same thing as just not buying their movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't get it.
It's NOT their movies they want to control, it's MY TV.
If it was just their movie, fine, put a label on it.
I don't have to buy it.
What they are trying to do is force ALL TV manufacturers to give THEM control over what can be recorded and how.
That is not the same thing as just not buying their movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074716</id>
	<title>It's kind of funny</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1258049640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>my answer to this is the same as their proposition:<br> <br>

Put a soc in it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>my answer to this is the same as their proposition : Put a soc in it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my answer to this is the same as their proposition: 

Put a soc in it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30080250</id>
	<title>Ah, pirates!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm personally very intimated by smelly navy men wearing eye-patches and swinging swords.  Or waving guns around Nigeria.</p><p>Anything the MPAA can do to help with these scary situations is appreciated.</p><p>If the MPAA and RIAA weren't around, we might have been overrun years ago!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm personally very intimated by smelly navy men wearing eye-patches and swinging swords .
Or waving guns around Nigeria.Anything the MPAA can do to help with these scary situations is appreciated.If the MPAA and RIAA were n't around , we might have been overrun years ago !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm personally very intimated by smelly navy men wearing eye-patches and swinging swords.
Or waving guns around Nigeria.Anything the MPAA can do to help with these scary situations is appreciated.If the MPAA and RIAA weren't around, we might have been overrun years ago!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30088410</id>
	<title>okay</title>
	<author>vuffi\_raa</author>
	<datestamp>1258135920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so my choice is to say screw the legal route dump my provider and be able to use my consoles and pc on my tv and pirate what I want to watch or give up my consoles and pc on my tv in favor of an expensive switch box and new cables/converters so that I can pay for content, I wonder what my decision would be? <br>Sorry MPAA but I am trying to be legal you are just making it really difficult to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so my choice is to say screw the legal route dump my provider and be able to use my consoles and pc on my tv and pirate what I want to watch or give up my consoles and pc on my tv in favor of an expensive switch box and new cables/converters so that I can pay for content , I wonder what my decision would be ?
Sorry MPAA but I am trying to be legal you are just making it really difficult to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so my choice is to say screw the legal route dump my provider and be able to use my consoles and pc on my tv and pirate what I want to watch or give up my consoles and pc on my tv in favor of an expensive switch box and new cables/converters so that I can pay for content, I wonder what my decision would be?
Sorry MPAA but I am trying to be legal you are just making it really difficult to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>clang\_jangle</author>
	<datestamp>1258047240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wonder how well that would work for people using a computer with a TV tuner for watching?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder how well that would work for people using a computer with a TV tuner for watching ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder how well that would work for people using a computer with a TV tuner for watching?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074280</id>
	<title>Yet another case</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1258048200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Of the Media companies trying to SOC it to everyone.

They are probably pushing it by saying it will help the economy since everyone will have to buy new TVs and DVRs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Of the Media companies trying to SOC it to everyone .
They are probably pushing it by saying it will help the economy since everyone will have to buy new TVs and DVRs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Of the Media companies trying to SOC it to everyone.
They are probably pushing it by saying it will help the economy since everyone will have to buy new TVs and DVRs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075060</id>
	<title>Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1258050420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that quote about "they could offer more goods to consumers" is insane.  First of all, they can offer those goods to consumers.  This change wouldn't create the possibility of offering those products; it only increases the control of what consumers do after buying those products.
</p><p>Second, even if it did allow them to offer more goods, why the hell is that the FCC's business?  Since when is it the FCC's job to create business opportunities for the MPAA?  I was under the impression that the FCC was supposed to be regulating the broadcasters and protecting the citizens, and not the other way around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that quote about " they could offer more goods to consumers " is insane .
First of all , they can offer those goods to consumers .
This change would n't create the possibility of offering those products ; it only increases the control of what consumers do after buying those products .
Second , even if it did allow them to offer more goods , why the hell is that the FCC 's business ?
Since when is it the FCC 's job to create business opportunities for the MPAA ?
I was under the impression that the FCC was supposed to be regulating the broadcasters and protecting the citizens , and not the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that quote about "they could offer more goods to consumers" is insane.
First of all, they can offer those goods to consumers.
This change wouldn't create the possibility of offering those products; it only increases the control of what consumers do after buying those products.
Second, even if it did allow them to offer more goods, why the hell is that the FCC's business?
Since when is it the FCC's job to create business opportunities for the MPAA?
I was under the impression that the FCC was supposed to be regulating the broadcasters and protecting the citizens, and not the other way around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074210</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>jiriw</author>
	<datestamp>1258048020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For that, they invented TPM, HDMI and various other consumer experience impeding technologies.<br>If you can demand the whole chain is signed -bios, operating system, drivers and display hardware (via HDMI)- you can make 'sure' (unless an exploring and fearless hacker shows otherwise - risking a criminal offense per DCMA) the movie is only played when you want to. And I think the MPAA won't allow TV tuner hardware to decode this 'premium' content before they 'cum in their mandatory TPM wet dream'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For that , they invented TPM , HDMI and various other consumer experience impeding technologies.If you can demand the whole chain is signed -bios , operating system , drivers and display hardware ( via HDMI ) - you can make 'sure ' ( unless an exploring and fearless hacker shows otherwise - risking a criminal offense per DCMA ) the movie is only played when you want to .
And I think the MPAA wo n't allow TV tuner hardware to decode this 'premium ' content before they 'cum in their mandatory TPM wet dream' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that, they invented TPM, HDMI and various other consumer experience impeding technologies.If you can demand the whole chain is signed -bios, operating system, drivers and display hardware (via HDMI)- you can make 'sure' (unless an exploring and fearless hacker shows otherwise - risking a criminal offense per DCMA) the movie is only played when you want to.
And I think the MPAA won't allow TV tuner hardware to decode this 'premium' content before they 'cum in their mandatory TPM wet dream'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077260</id>
	<title>The Market</title>
	<author>rearden</author>
	<datestamp>1258057500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny how the MPAA and others want the government out of their business and insist on letting "market forces" decide what is going to be served by the MPAA members. However when they want other companies to do things they want a government mandate!<br><br>If the MPAA thinks this is really a valuable proposition, then let them recruit consumer electronics manfs and marked the equipment as able to get "special early release movies". If users like this they will purchase the equipment and it will become a defacto standard.<br><br>I say we use their arguments against government regulations against them, just quote them.<br><br>-JLKirk</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how the MPAA and others want the government out of their business and insist on letting " market forces " decide what is going to be served by the MPAA members .
However when they want other companies to do things they want a government mandate ! If the MPAA thinks this is really a valuable proposition , then let them recruit consumer electronics manfs and marked the equipment as able to get " special early release movies " .
If users like this they will purchase the equipment and it will become a defacto standard.I say we use their arguments against government regulations against them , just quote them.-JLKirk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how the MPAA and others want the government out of their business and insist on letting "market forces" decide what is going to be served by the MPAA members.
However when they want other companies to do things they want a government mandate!If the MPAA thinks this is really a valuable proposition, then let them recruit consumer electronics manfs and marked the equipment as able to get "special early release movies".
If users like this they will purchase the equipment and it will become a defacto standard.I say we use their arguments against government regulations against them, just quote them.-JLKirk
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074090</id>
	<title>Every time...</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1258047600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...  I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this. "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers." Really? REALLY?!?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I think I ca n't hate the * * AA any more than I already do , they pull crap like this .
" The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
" Really ?
REALLY ? ! ? ! ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...  I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this.
"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
" Really?
REALLY?!?!?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074714</id>
	<title>Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1258049640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, but they aren't really like the record industry where they are struggling to use an outdated business model using outdated methods of shipping that are no longer needed. They see it as a monopoly situation so demand for their product is rather inflexible. By controlling the release of their product they can tier the charging and make more money as people become more willing to buy in. Movies aren't really inflexible though. I don't really need movies so I will just spend my money on something else until the price comes into my price range, like $2 at the rental store. I don't really see where their argument is going. They aren't really selling more product they are just trying to add another pricing tier to capture more profit when it won't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but they are n't really like the record industry where they are struggling to use an outdated business model using outdated methods of shipping that are no longer needed .
They see it as a monopoly situation so demand for their product is rather inflexible .
By controlling the release of their product they can tier the charging and make more money as people become more willing to buy in .
Movies are n't really inflexible though .
I do n't really need movies so I will just spend my money on something else until the price comes into my price range , like $ 2 at the rental store .
I do n't really see where their argument is going .
They are n't really selling more product they are just trying to add another pricing tier to capture more profit when it wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but they aren't really like the record industry where they are struggling to use an outdated business model using outdated methods of shipping that are no longer needed.
They see it as a monopoly situation so demand for their product is rather inflexible.
By controlling the release of their product they can tier the charging and make more money as people become more willing to buy in.
Movies aren't really inflexible though.
I don't really need movies so I will just spend my money on something else until the price comes into my price range, like $2 at the rental store.
I don't really see where their argument is going.
They aren't really selling more product they are just trying to add another pricing tier to capture more profit when it won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30082840</id>
	<title>boycott</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258041000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am so sick of the greed and the strong arm tactics of MPAA  that I hereby declare that I will not purchase any CD or DVD for one year.  Many people live well without having movies.  I believe if we would all just refrain from feeding their greed for a full year it would bring them to their knees.  I care enough that I will not buy a CD or DVD until 2011.

I know that one person wont be noticed but my soul will be at peace.  If you want to put a stop to this a boycott is the only thing these greedy bastards understand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so sick of the greed and the strong arm tactics of MPAA that I hereby declare that I will not purchase any CD or DVD for one year .
Many people live well without having movies .
I believe if we would all just refrain from feeding their greed for a full year it would bring them to their knees .
I care enough that I will not buy a CD or DVD until 2011 .
I know that one person wont be noticed but my soul will be at peace .
If you want to put a stop to this a boycott is the only thing these greedy bastards understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so sick of the greed and the strong arm tactics of MPAA  that I hereby declare that I will not purchase any CD or DVD for one year.
Many people live well without having movies.
I believe if we would all just refrain from feeding their greed for a full year it would bring them to their knees.
I care enough that I will not buy a CD or DVD until 2011.
I know that one person wont be noticed but my soul will be at peace.
If you want to put a stop to this a boycott is the only thing these greedy bastards understand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074326</id>
	<title>XKCD said it best.</title>
	<author>supersloshy</author>
	<datestamp>1258048320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this pretty much sums up our future if this is allowed to happen: <a href="http://xkcd.com/129/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/129/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>Scary thought...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this pretty much sums up our future if this is allowed to happen : http : //xkcd.com/129/ [ xkcd.com ] Scary thought.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this pretty much sums up our future if this is allowed to happen: http://xkcd.com/129/ [xkcd.com]Scary thought...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076414</id>
	<title>MPAA to consumers</title>
	<author>LuxMaker</author>
	<datestamp>1258054560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm in your analog hole offering more goods and services.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in your analog hole offering more goods and services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in your analog hole offering more goods and services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074032</id>
	<title>Easy solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't want those products...</p><p>keep em...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't want those products...keep em.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't want those products...keep em...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074244</id>
	<title>Great how am I...</title>
	<author>Zarf\_is\_with\_you</author>
	<datestamp>1258048140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Great how am I going to make my Boot Leg Beta Max tapes and sell them at the local Flea Market?<br><br>PA-HA-lease!<br><br>It seems to me these people are living a house made of Glass from a old industry that made them lots of money, I think if they keep throwing these stones at everyone something is going to get broken.<br><br>The amount of resources that they throw at projects like this,  would be better put to selling the content in more inventive ways useful ways.<br><br>Give the Consumer what they want at a reasonable price</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great how am I going to make my Boot Leg Beta Max tapes and sell them at the local Flea Market ? PA-HA-lease ! It seems to me these people are living a house made of Glass from a old industry that made them lots of money , I think if they keep throwing these stones at everyone something is going to get broken.The amount of resources that they throw at projects like this , would be better put to selling the content in more inventive ways useful ways.Give the Consumer what they want at a reasonable price</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great how am I going to make my Boot Leg Beta Max tapes and sell them at the local Flea Market?PA-HA-lease!It seems to me these people are living a house made of Glass from a old industry that made them lots of money, I think if they keep throwing these stones at everyone something is going to get broken.The amount of resources that they throw at projects like this,  would be better put to selling the content in more inventive ways useful ways.Give the Consumer what they want at a reasonable price</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't this be a decision that consumers make? I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier..  if not, then we get normal release times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't this be a decision that consumers make ?
I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier.. if not , then we get normal release times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't this be a decision that consumers make?
I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier..  if not, then we get normal release times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30082280</id>
	<title>Let Them.</title>
	<author>sharkbiter</author>
	<datestamp>1258035900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more that they control the sooner that Joe Sixpack becomes aware that he can't watch what he wants to. When the sales of entertainment drop below a sustainable figure and the MPAA/RIAA flogs their congress-critters to pass even more draconian laws, only then will the populace wake up from their Pop-culture stupor and vote the congress-critters out of office.</p><p>Heck, maybe they'll even grab up the CEOs of the various "entertainment" community and put them up against the wall. Followed shortly by the ambulance chasers with an apperegio of a few financial institutions' COOs as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more that they control the sooner that Joe Sixpack becomes aware that he ca n't watch what he wants to .
When the sales of entertainment drop below a sustainable figure and the MPAA/RIAA flogs their congress-critters to pass even more draconian laws , only then will the populace wake up from their Pop-culture stupor and vote the congress-critters out of office.Heck , maybe they 'll even grab up the CEOs of the various " entertainment " community and put them up against the wall .
Followed shortly by the ambulance chasers with an apperegio of a few financial institutions ' COOs as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more that they control the sooner that Joe Sixpack becomes aware that he can't watch what he wants to.
When the sales of entertainment drop below a sustainable figure and the MPAA/RIAA flogs their congress-critters to pass even more draconian laws, only then will the populace wake up from their Pop-culture stupor and vote the congress-critters out of office.Heck, maybe they'll even grab up the CEOs of the various "entertainment" community and put them up against the wall.
Followed shortly by the ambulance chasers with an apperegio of a few financial institutions' COOs as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30083104</id>
	<title>Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1258043040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems clear to me - Hollywood has been successfully infiltrated by the Slashdot Illuminati. For years they've been conditioning the technocrats into accepting continual recycling of the same information, the powerful few who once could have stood against them, with an endless series of dupes. Disguising this ruse as mere incompetence and laziness, they've now bribed, blackmailed and assassinated their way up into the highest echelons of the media industry so they can try and assert their control over the proles as well.</p><p>Think that the coming of talentless no-hopers like $any\_fucking\_pop\_artist appearing all over the top of the charts is a coincidence? Think again. 1997, slashdot opens. 1997, Britney is given her first record contract... paid for by a bank account traceable back to the now defunct (and suspiciously absent from any business records - just try looking for them on google, they're not there) MaldaBates Holdings registered in the Cayman Islands... who were also the 51\% stakeholders in Jive Records. Coincidence?</p><p>Mark my words, behind the friendly green glow of slashdot lies a shadowy consortium of power brokers, vulture capitalists, politicians, marketing consultants and soda manufacturers. They're out for control, and they're winning.</p><p>Posting anonymously in case CowboyNeal is watching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems clear to me - Hollywood has been successfully infiltrated by the Slashdot Illuminati .
For years they 've been conditioning the technocrats into accepting continual recycling of the same information , the powerful few who once could have stood against them , with an endless series of dupes .
Disguising this ruse as mere incompetence and laziness , they 've now bribed , blackmailed and assassinated their way up into the highest echelons of the media industry so they can try and assert their control over the proles as well.Think that the coming of talentless no-hopers like $ any \ _fucking \ _pop \ _artist appearing all over the top of the charts is a coincidence ?
Think again .
1997 , slashdot opens .
1997 , Britney is given her first record contract... paid for by a bank account traceable back to the now defunct ( and suspiciously absent from any business records - just try looking for them on google , they 're not there ) MaldaBates Holdings registered in the Cayman Islands... who were also the 51 \ % stakeholders in Jive Records .
Coincidence ? Mark my words , behind the friendly green glow of slashdot lies a shadowy consortium of power brokers , vulture capitalists , politicians , marketing consultants and soda manufacturers .
They 're out for control , and they 're winning.Posting anonymously in case CowboyNeal is watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems clear to me - Hollywood has been successfully infiltrated by the Slashdot Illuminati.
For years they've been conditioning the technocrats into accepting continual recycling of the same information, the powerful few who once could have stood against them, with an endless series of dupes.
Disguising this ruse as mere incompetence and laziness, they've now bribed, blackmailed and assassinated their way up into the highest echelons of the media industry so they can try and assert their control over the proles as well.Think that the coming of talentless no-hopers like $any\_fucking\_pop\_artist appearing all over the top of the charts is a coincidence?
Think again.
1997, slashdot opens.
1997, Britney is given her first record contract... paid for by a bank account traceable back to the now defunct (and suspiciously absent from any business records - just try looking for them on google, they're not there) MaldaBates Holdings registered in the Cayman Islands... who were also the 51\% stakeholders in Jive Records.
Coincidence?Mark my words, behind the friendly green glow of slashdot lies a shadowy consortium of power brokers, vulture capitalists, politicians, marketing consultants and soda manufacturers.
They're out for control, and they're winning.Posting anonymously in case CowboyNeal is watching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074056</id>
	<title>MPAA = Who will THINK of the CHILDREN ???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MPAA wants to plug up my analog hole !  Perverts !  BAD TOUCH !  I NEED AN ADULT !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA wants to plug up my analog hole !
Perverts !
BAD TOUCH !
I NEED AN ADULT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA wants to plug up my analog hole !
Perverts !
BAD TOUCH !
I NEED AN ADULT !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077362</id>
	<title>Re:Movie industry opportunities with this technolo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258057740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I say this after recently hearing an outspoken business man up here in Canada say that he'd be willing to pay big to see a movie the day it was released if he could see it in his own home.</i></p><p>The studios don't need to disable "the analog hole" to release movies directly to TV. Any more than they need to disable "the analog hole" to release movies in all zones simultaneously. They stage their releases NOT because they're afraid of "piracy"... in fact staged releases *increase* "piracy", but because they make more money that way. If they get the ability to disable the analog hole they will continue to stage their releases, and the cable company will start using it to extort more money from MY pocket after they make "analog support" an extra cost option, even for things like Mythbusters.</p><p>And, man, I can't believe you're trying to make me feel sorry for a "poor businessman" who's making more money than I'll ever make if he's willing to pay $100 just to watch a frigging movie a few months earlier. I'm certainly not willing to accept that I should be willing to have my own property crippled because of it. If he's willing to buy everyone in the US a new TV for the sake of avoiding the kid with the running nose, THEN he can come back with an offer and I'll consider it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say this after recently hearing an outspoken business man up here in Canada say that he 'd be willing to pay big to see a movie the day it was released if he could see it in his own home.The studios do n't need to disable " the analog hole " to release movies directly to TV .
Any more than they need to disable " the analog hole " to release movies in all zones simultaneously .
They stage their releases NOT because they 're afraid of " piracy " ... in fact staged releases * increase * " piracy " , but because they make more money that way .
If they get the ability to disable the analog hole they will continue to stage their releases , and the cable company will start using it to extort more money from MY pocket after they make " analog support " an extra cost option , even for things like Mythbusters.And , man , I ca n't believe you 're trying to make me feel sorry for a " poor businessman " who 's making more money than I 'll ever make if he 's willing to pay $ 100 just to watch a frigging movie a few months earlier .
I 'm certainly not willing to accept that I should be willing to have my own property crippled because of it .
If he 's willing to buy everyone in the US a new TV for the sake of avoiding the kid with the running nose , THEN he can come back with an offer and I 'll consider it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say this after recently hearing an outspoken business man up here in Canada say that he'd be willing to pay big to see a movie the day it was released if he could see it in his own home.The studios don't need to disable "the analog hole" to release movies directly to TV.
Any more than they need to disable "the analog hole" to release movies in all zones simultaneously.
They stage their releases NOT because they're afraid of "piracy"... in fact staged releases *increase* "piracy", but because they make more money that way.
If they get the ability to disable the analog hole they will continue to stage their releases, and the cable company will start using it to extort more money from MY pocket after they make "analog support" an extra cost option, even for things like Mythbusters.And, man, I can't believe you're trying to make me feel sorry for a "poor businessman" who's making more money than I'll ever make if he's willing to pay $100 just to watch a frigging movie a few months earlier.
I'm certainly not willing to accept that I should be willing to have my own property crippled because of it.
If he's willing to buy everyone in the US a new TV for the sake of avoiding the kid with the running nose, THEN he can come back with an offer and I'll consider it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30141236</id>
	<title>Anti-Net neutrality in another form</title>
	<author>Randym</author>
	<datestamp>1257071040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."</i> </p><p>s/MPAA/corporate content industry/ <br>
s/plugs/packet priority levels/ <br>
s/more goods/faster content delivery/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
" s/MPAA/corporate content industry/ s/plugs/packet priority levels/ s/more goods/faster content delivery/</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
" s/MPAA/corporate content industry/ 
s/plugs/packet priority levels/ 
s/more goods/faster content delivery/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075456</id>
	<title>TV owns the MPAA's crap</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1258051560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks to the high production quality and much more in-dept story of shows like Lost, Heroes, Dexter, etc, I've found myself watching more TV shows and far less movies.  So to the MPAA, I say keep your shitty movies, I won't miss them...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to the high production quality and much more in-dept story of shows like Lost , Heroes , Dexter , etc , I 've found myself watching more TV shows and far less movies .
So to the MPAA , I say keep your shitty movies , I wo n't miss them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to the high production quality and much more in-dept story of shows like Lost, Heroes, Dexter, etc, I've found myself watching more TV shows and far less movies.
So to the MPAA, I say keep your shitty movies, I won't miss them...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079144</id>
	<title>CRT TVs too.</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1258021200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us, like me, still use older TVs like CRTs. I still use my 20" size from 1996! I know a lot of people do. I will replace it when it starting showing problems.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us , like me , still use older TVs like CRTs .
I still use my 20 " size from 1996 !
I know a lot of people do .
I will replace it when it starting showing problems .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us, like me, still use older TVs like CRTs.
I still use my 20" size from 1996!
I know a lot of people do.
I will replace it when it starting showing problems.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077846</id>
	<title>Re:Just to ask . . .</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1258059540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when you don't buy what they are offering they'll run to their government lackeys crying "Our sales are dropping! It must be those awful Internet Pirates!  Please pass this new law which will give us massively increased powers of control over regular users' lives or we might just stop producing such fine works as Pointless Sequel 7 or Brainless Action Movie 12.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when you do n't buy what they are offering they 'll run to their government lackeys crying " Our sales are dropping !
It must be those awful Internet Pirates !
Please pass this new law which will give us massively increased powers of control over regular users ' lives or we might just stop producing such fine works as Pointless Sequel 7 or Brainless Action Movie 12 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when you don't buy what they are offering they'll run to their government lackeys crying "Our sales are dropping!
It must be those awful Internet Pirates!
Please pass this new law which will give us massively increased powers of control over regular users' lives or we might just stop producing such fine works as Pointless Sequel 7 or Brainless Action Movie 12.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074650</id>
	<title>Here is an Idea</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1258049460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not have a law that bans all record buttons since we are at it?<br>
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein<br>
<br>
MPAA proving Einstein right even now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not have a law that bans all record buttons since we are at it ?
" Only two things are infinite , the universe and human stupidity , and I 'm not sure about the former .
" - Albert Einstein MPAA proving Einstein right even now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not have a law that bans all record buttons since we are at it?
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
" - Albert Einstein

MPAA proving Einstein right even now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079314</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>XnavxeMiyyep</author>
	<datestamp>1258021860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's an application for Mac OS X called Snapz Pro X that will record whatever is on your screen. You can choose a subsection of the screen if you like. It will also record the audio.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an application for Mac OS X called Snapz Pro X that will record whatever is on your screen .
You can choose a subsection of the screen if you like .
It will also record the audio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an application for Mac OS X called Snapz Pro X that will record whatever is on your screen.
You can choose a subsection of the screen if you like.
It will also record the audio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075272</id>
	<title>SDTVs still exist</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1258051080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 can't fix.</p></div><p>
Other than revoking the HDCP keys used by HDFury2.
</p><p>
More importantly, what's the best way to turn HDMI into composite video or S-Video for a <em>standard-definition</em> television? As far as I can tell, it involves an HDFury2 ($200) and a VGA-to-TV scan converter (another $50). Until HDTVs start showing up in thrift stores, there will be people who replace a broken SDTV with a used SDTV.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 ca n't fix .
Other than revoking the HDCP keys used by HDFury2 .
More importantly , what 's the best way to turn HDMI into composite video or S-Video for a standard-definition television ?
As far as I can tell , it involves an HDFury2 ( $ 200 ) and a VGA-to-TV scan converter ( another $ 50 ) .
Until HDTVs start showing up in thrift stores , there will be people who replace a broken SDTV with a used SDTV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 can't fix.
Other than revoking the HDCP keys used by HDFury2.
More importantly, what's the best way to turn HDMI into composite video or S-Video for a standard-definition television?
As far as I can tell, it involves an HDFury2 ($200) and a VGA-to-TV scan converter (another $50).
Until HDTVs start showing up in thrift stores, there will be people who replace a broken SDTV with a used SDTV.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074116</id>
	<title>MPAA control</title>
	<author>prakslash</author>
	<datestamp>1258047660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot story in 2012: <b>MPAA asks again for control of bank accounts</b> <br>
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' bank accounts, they could offer more goods to consumers.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot story in 2012 : MPAA asks again for control of bank accounts The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers ' bank accounts , they could offer more goods to consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot story in 2012: MPAA asks again for control of bank accounts 
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' bank accounts, they could offer more goods to consumers.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077572</id>
	<title>Re:Cartel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258058640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of course they do. Where do you think they get their lube from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of course they do .
Where do you think they get their lube from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course they do.
Where do you think they get their lube from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30083672</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Phopojijo</author>
	<datestamp>1258049640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow... depending on how you look at it...

The MPAA is claiming they're doing it not to be powerhungry people who hate their customers... they're powerhungry people who hate their customers who are also being anticompetitive...

Wow... my mind is officially blown.

Their justification is MORE illegal than the real reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... depending on how you look at it.. . The MPAA is claiming they 're doing it not to be powerhungry people who hate their customers... they 're powerhungry people who hate their customers who are also being anticompetitive.. . Wow... my mind is officially blown .
Their justification is MORE illegal than the real reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... depending on how you look at it...

The MPAA is claiming they're doing it not to be powerhungry people who hate their customers... they're powerhungry people who hate their customers who are also being anticompetitive...

Wow... my mind is officially blown.
Their justification is MORE illegal than the real reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075328</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258051200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will I be prevented from using a video camera to record the TV screen as it's playing?</p></div><p>The studios have a workaround for that: make video games instead of movies, as seen in <i>Enter the Matrix</i> and <i>Path of Neo</i>. Watching a cam of a video game is nowhere near playing it yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will I be prevented from using a video camera to record the TV screen as it 's playing ? The studios have a workaround for that : make video games instead of movies , as seen in Enter the Matrix and Path of Neo .
Watching a cam of a video game is nowhere near playing it yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will I be prevented from using a video camera to record the TV screen as it's playing?The studios have a workaround for that: make video games instead of movies, as seen in Enter the Matrix and Path of Neo.
Watching a cam of a video game is nowhere near playing it yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075764</id>
	<title>Re:MPAA control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258052520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 2014 they'll be asking Congress to close the "cash hole"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2014 they 'll be asking Congress to close the " cash hole "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2014 they'll be asking Congress to close the "cash hole"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075292</id>
	<title>Precedent</title>
	<author>armchairyoda</author>
	<datestamp>1258051140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're trying to set a precedent for future legal use with current and emerging tech.

Give 'em an inch now and I bet they'll try for a mile sooner than later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're trying to set a precedent for future legal use with current and emerging tech .
Give 'em an inch now and I bet they 'll try for a mile sooner than later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're trying to set a precedent for future legal use with current and emerging tech.
Give 'em an inch now and I bet they'll try for a mile sooner than later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074318</id>
	<title>Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258048320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>as they tighten their control over the products they sell</p></div><p>They're trying to tighten control over products they *don't* sell!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>as they tighten their control over the products they sellThey 're trying to tighten control over products they * do n't * sell !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as they tighten their control over the products they sellThey're trying to tighten control over products they *don't* sell!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076406</id>
	<title>Re:Cartel</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1258054560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't happen because Congress passed legislation 30 years ago protecting these organizations from Anti-Trust actions. Until that protection is revoked the behavior will continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't happen because Congress passed legislation 30 years ago protecting these organizations from Anti-Trust actions .
Until that protection is revoked the behavior will continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't happen because Congress passed legislation 30 years ago protecting these organizations from Anti-Trust actions.
Until that protection is revoked the behavior will continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30078892</id>
	<title>Broken economics</title>
	<author>nokiator</author>
	<datestamp>1258020300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another MPAA attempt to resuscitate a dying business model through prohibitive legislation. The fundamental source of the piracy problem is economical. Technology has greatly reduced the cost of creation and distribution of content (not including the pay for stars/directors/studio execs), but content owners still want to impose archaic pricing policies on content which clearly is not worth it for many people.
<p>
I stopped buying DVDs since renting them (mail or online) through Netflix is much more economical and convenient. I pay my $16.99 monthly content "tax" to Netflix, and I am all set. This is the new model for content use. The solution is to extend the fee based online access to cover all available content. If I can watch any movie I want any time I want for a $20/month subscription fee, why would I bother pirating DVDs?
</p><p>
Trying to fight economics through legislation has never worked, and never will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another MPAA attempt to resuscitate a dying business model through prohibitive legislation .
The fundamental source of the piracy problem is economical .
Technology has greatly reduced the cost of creation and distribution of content ( not including the pay for stars/directors/studio execs ) , but content owners still want to impose archaic pricing policies on content which clearly is not worth it for many people .
I stopped buying DVDs since renting them ( mail or online ) through Netflix is much more economical and convenient .
I pay my $ 16.99 monthly content " tax " to Netflix , and I am all set .
This is the new model for content use .
The solution is to extend the fee based online access to cover all available content .
If I can watch any movie I want any time I want for a $ 20/month subscription fee , why would I bother pirating DVDs ?
Trying to fight economics through legislation has never worked , and never will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another MPAA attempt to resuscitate a dying business model through prohibitive legislation.
The fundamental source of the piracy problem is economical.
Technology has greatly reduced the cost of creation and distribution of content (not including the pay for stars/directors/studio execs), but content owners still want to impose archaic pricing policies on content which clearly is not worth it for many people.
I stopped buying DVDs since renting them (mail or online) through Netflix is much more economical and convenient.
I pay my $16.99 monthly content "tax" to Netflix, and I am all set.
This is the new model for content use.
The solution is to extend the fee based online access to cover all available content.
If I can watch any movie I want any time I want for a $20/month subscription fee, why would I bother pirating DVDs?
Trying to fight economics through legislation has never worked, and never will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074374</id>
	<title>fixed the typo</title>
	<author>Xenious</author>
	<datestamp>1258048500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods^H^H^H^H^H screw more consumers."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H screw more consumers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods^H^H^H^H^H screw more consumers.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075004</id>
	<title>I want DRM!</title>
	<author>janimal</author>
	<datestamp>1258050300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome such an advancement. (Yea, I'm trolling with the subject, but I do want to make a point)</p><p>I have a satellite decoder/PVR on my TV that lets me record HD movies (true, I can't get them off the box), and lets me rent movies for 24 hour periods (VOD). I do not pirate, as I'm happy to pay for my content. But, guess what, I haven't rented a VOD movie yet. Why? Because the deal sucks. I'm sure the idiots who invented it will figure out what's wrong sooner or later (price).</p><p>I say: Let the MPAA have their DRM and let's see how much more they sell. If they get the kind of control they want, then we'll have the freedom not to buy their produce. I'll be more than happy to stop paying if they give me a worse product.</p><p>It's not like i need to see 2012 on my TV before it comes out on BD; hell, I don't have to go see it on my TV at all (I already paid to see it at the theatre).</p><p>Why give these idiots arguments to sponsor projects, like "pirate taxes"? I'd much rather have DRM in my TV and PVR than have to pay a pirate tax or some other stupid blanket scheme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome such an advancement .
( Yea , I 'm trolling with the subject , but I do want to make a point ) I have a satellite decoder/PVR on my TV that lets me record HD movies ( true , I ca n't get them off the box ) , and lets me rent movies for 24 hour periods ( VOD ) .
I do not pirate , as I 'm happy to pay for my content .
But , guess what , I have n't rented a VOD movie yet .
Why ? Because the deal sucks .
I 'm sure the idiots who invented it will figure out what 's wrong sooner or later ( price ) .I say : Let the MPAA have their DRM and let 's see how much more they sell .
If they get the kind of control they want , then we 'll have the freedom not to buy their produce .
I 'll be more than happy to stop paying if they give me a worse product.It 's not like i need to see 2012 on my TV before it comes out on BD ; hell , I do n't have to go see it on my TV at all ( I already paid to see it at the theatre ) .Why give these idiots arguments to sponsor projects , like " pirate taxes " ?
I 'd much rather have DRM in my TV and PVR than have to pay a pirate tax or some other stupid blanket scheme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome such an advancement.
(Yea, I'm trolling with the subject, but I do want to make a point)I have a satellite decoder/PVR on my TV that lets me record HD movies (true, I can't get them off the box), and lets me rent movies for 24 hour periods (VOD).
I do not pirate, as I'm happy to pay for my content.
But, guess what, I haven't rented a VOD movie yet.
Why? Because the deal sucks.
I'm sure the idiots who invented it will figure out what's wrong sooner or later (price).I say: Let the MPAA have their DRM and let's see how much more they sell.
If they get the kind of control they want, then we'll have the freedom not to buy their produce.
I'll be more than happy to stop paying if they give me a worse product.It's not like i need to see 2012 on my TV before it comes out on BD; hell, I don't have to go see it on my TV at all (I already paid to see it at the theatre).Why give these idiots arguments to sponsor projects, like "pirate taxes"?
I'd much rather have DRM in my TV and PVR than have to pay a pirate tax or some other stupid blanket scheme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074612</id>
	<title>Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"</title>
	<author>surmak</author>
	<datestamp>1258049400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What we are seeing is the result of taking the statement "Give me what I want, or I will take my ball and go home."  after it was translated by a PR flack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we are seeing is the result of taking the statement " Give me what I want , or I will take my ball and go home .
" after it was translated by a PR flack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we are seeing is the result of taking the statement "Give me what I want, or I will take my ball and go home.
"  after it was translated by a PR flack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074474</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1258048860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I think it is more a precedent setting move than anything. Just like Roe V Wade is more about setting precedent for how much control the fed or state has over what you do to your body than abortion (keeps the fed from sticking RFiDs in everyone at birth). This would potentially set a precedent for allowing manufacturers to control all output points on devices they produce (including the big one in the front you spend 3 to 6 hours a day staring at) for the life of the product,
<p>
-Oz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think it is more a precedent setting move than anything .
Just like Roe V Wade is more about setting precedent for how much control the fed or state has over what you do to your body than abortion ( keeps the fed from sticking RFiDs in everyone at birth ) .
This would potentially set a precedent for allowing manufacturers to control all output points on devices they produce ( including the big one in the front you spend 3 to 6 hours a day staring at ) for the life of the product , -Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think it is more a precedent setting move than anything.
Just like Roe V Wade is more about setting precedent for how much control the fed or state has over what you do to your body than abortion (keeps the fed from sticking RFiDs in everyone at birth).
This would potentially set a precedent for allowing manufacturers to control all output points on devices they produce (including the big one in the front you spend 3 to 6 hours a day staring at) for the life of the product,

-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075888</id>
	<title>Way to go, boneheads!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258052940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey boneheads, way to go!</p><p>My HDTV set is a computer 99\% of the time. I still have my behemoth of a CRT as television that 99\% of the time. There just isn't enough HDTV content to make it matter to me. Even when I have the set running as a television, I tune in the standard def content most of the time. High definition is great and all, but I'm not going to watch tv just for pixel peeping. I want to enjoy the story.</p><p>So, what would the result here be? "Pirated" (Yar!!!) content would become superior to the legitimate content. Why should I pay for an inferior product when a vastly superior alternative can be had for FREE? Why are the RIAA and MPAA always seeking ways to devalue the legitimate product? This is why I quit being an RIAA customer. I'm not so addicted to television and movies that I can't quit watching. If it comes to that, I'll be better off, anyhow; I will probably be more productive.</p><p>Hint: I've purchased over 400 DVDs by now, and I also subscribe to Netflix. That's a lot of money for one individual to stop spending on movies. Multiply that by the number of "consumers" the MPAA is alienating and the number can be astounding.</p><p>So, go ahead and disable the analog port. My HDMI-equipped set will remain in place as my PC monitor, my CRT may be worthless but any content I do want to watch, should you get your way with the analog ports, will be "pirated" content.</p><p>See you on bittorrent sites!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey boneheads , way to go ! My HDTV set is a computer 99 \ % of the time .
I still have my behemoth of a CRT as television that 99 \ % of the time .
There just is n't enough HDTV content to make it matter to me .
Even when I have the set running as a television , I tune in the standard def content most of the time .
High definition is great and all , but I 'm not going to watch tv just for pixel peeping .
I want to enjoy the story.So , what would the result here be ?
" Pirated " ( Yar ! ! !
) content would become superior to the legitimate content .
Why should I pay for an inferior product when a vastly superior alternative can be had for FREE ?
Why are the RIAA and MPAA always seeking ways to devalue the legitimate product ?
This is why I quit being an RIAA customer .
I 'm not so addicted to television and movies that I ca n't quit watching .
If it comes to that , I 'll be better off , anyhow ; I will probably be more productive.Hint : I 've purchased over 400 DVDs by now , and I also subscribe to Netflix .
That 's a lot of money for one individual to stop spending on movies .
Multiply that by the number of " consumers " the MPAA is alienating and the number can be astounding.So , go ahead and disable the analog port .
My HDMI-equipped set will remain in place as my PC monitor , my CRT may be worthless but any content I do want to watch , should you get your way with the analog ports , will be " pirated " content.See you on bittorrent sites !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey boneheads, way to go!My HDTV set is a computer 99\% of the time.
I still have my behemoth of a CRT as television that 99\% of the time.
There just isn't enough HDTV content to make it matter to me.
Even when I have the set running as a television, I tune in the standard def content most of the time.
High definition is great and all, but I'm not going to watch tv just for pixel peeping.
I want to enjoy the story.So, what would the result here be?
"Pirated" (Yar!!!
) content would become superior to the legitimate content.
Why should I pay for an inferior product when a vastly superior alternative can be had for FREE?
Why are the RIAA and MPAA always seeking ways to devalue the legitimate product?
This is why I quit being an RIAA customer.
I'm not so addicted to television and movies that I can't quit watching.
If it comes to that, I'll be better off, anyhow; I will probably be more productive.Hint: I've purchased over 400 DVDs by now, and I also subscribe to Netflix.
That's a lot of money for one individual to stop spending on movies.
Multiply that by the number of "consumers" the MPAA is alienating and the number can be astounding.So, go ahead and disable the analog port.
My HDMI-equipped set will remain in place as my PC monitor, my CRT may be worthless but any content I do want to watch, should you get your way with the analog ports, will be "pirated" content.See you on bittorrent sites!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074540</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>techoi</author>
	<datestamp>1258049160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Soviet Russia, analog hole watches you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , analog hole watches you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, analog hole watches you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074818</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>blincoln</author>
	<datestamp>1258049940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know.</i></p><p>I don't know of a way to do it via software, but in an absolute worst-case scenario, someone could just wire up a capture device to the output of the chip in an LCD display that drives the individual pixels (as Jellomizer hinted at above). Treat that output like you'd treat the raw output of the CCD/CMOS sensor in a digital camcorder, IE dump it into a RAM buffer as an uncompressed bitmap and then re-encode it using your favourite method. You'd lose some quality that way, but I don't believe it would be any more than with an analogue copy. If someone with a degree in CS and/or math wanted to be very fancy, maybe they could write an algorithm that would make a best guess about the original compressed encoding based on the raw bitmap. That is, try to figure out things like "oh, there are sixteen pixels of the same colour arranged in a perfect square, here's how that would have been encoded in an MPEG4 stream" or whatever. That way even the re-encoding losses would be minimized.<br>It would take a lot of work to build the hardware and raw capture device, but (again, as has been mentioned previously) only one person in the world needs to do it and then as soon as they've got the un-DRM'd digital copy anyone who's interested can have it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams ( either via webpage or their desktop app ) , I 'd love to know.I do n't know of a way to do it via software , but in an absolute worst-case scenario , someone could just wire up a capture device to the output of the chip in an LCD display that drives the individual pixels ( as Jellomizer hinted at above ) .
Treat that output like you 'd treat the raw output of the CCD/CMOS sensor in a digital camcorder , IE dump it into a RAM buffer as an uncompressed bitmap and then re-encode it using your favourite method .
You 'd lose some quality that way , but I do n't believe it would be any more than with an analogue copy .
If someone with a degree in CS and/or math wanted to be very fancy , maybe they could write an algorithm that would make a best guess about the original compressed encoding based on the raw bitmap .
That is , try to figure out things like " oh , there are sixteen pixels of the same colour arranged in a perfect square , here 's how that would have been encoded in an MPEG4 stream " or whatever .
That way even the re-encoding losses would be minimized.It would take a lot of work to build the hardware and raw capture device , but ( again , as has been mentioned previously ) only one person in the world needs to do it and then as soon as they 've got the un-DRM 'd digital copy anyone who 's interested can have it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know.I don't know of a way to do it via software, but in an absolute worst-case scenario, someone could just wire up a capture device to the output of the chip in an LCD display that drives the individual pixels (as Jellomizer hinted at above).
Treat that output like you'd treat the raw output of the CCD/CMOS sensor in a digital camcorder, IE dump it into a RAM buffer as an uncompressed bitmap and then re-encode it using your favourite method.
You'd lose some quality that way, but I don't believe it would be any more than with an analogue copy.
If someone with a degree in CS and/or math wanted to be very fancy, maybe they could write an algorithm that would make a best guess about the original compressed encoding based on the raw bitmap.
That is, try to figure out things like "oh, there are sixteen pixels of the same colour arranged in a perfect square, here's how that would have been encoded in an MPEG4 stream" or whatever.
That way even the re-encoding losses would be minimized.It would take a lot of work to build the hardware and raw capture device, but (again, as has been mentioned previously) only one person in the world needs to do it and then as soon as they've got the un-DRM'd digital copy anyone who's interested can have it too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075770</id>
	<title>How to insert SOC flag to block Fox News and SHN?</title>
	<author>aspelling</author>
	<datestamp>1258052520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How to insert this SOC flag to block out Fox News and Shop-at-Home?</p><p>On the other note -  why do you guys obsessed about MPAA trying to prevent somebody to copy THEIR content without getting paid?<br>If you don't want to pay - don't watch. I haven't watched a movie on TV for a while just because there is almost nothing to watch except Bruno.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How to insert this SOC flag to block out Fox News and Shop-at-Home ? On the other note - why do you guys obsessed about MPAA trying to prevent somebody to copy THEIR content without getting paid ? If you do n't want to pay - do n't watch .
I have n't watched a movie on TV for a while just because there is almost nothing to watch except Bruno .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How to insert this SOC flag to block out Fox News and Shop-at-Home?On the other note -  why do you guys obsessed about MPAA trying to prevent somebody to copy THEIR content without getting paid?If you don't want to pay - don't watch.
I haven't watched a movie on TV for a while just because there is almost nothing to watch except Bruno.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075646</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258052160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>    "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."</p><p>Fuck you, you fucking fucks!</p></div><p>I think you left out a "fuck" or five.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
" Fuck you , you fucking fucks ! I think you left out a " fuck " or five .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
"Fuck you, you fucking fucks!I think you left out a "fuck" or five.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075164</id>
	<title>Re:The old fashioned way</title>
	<author>mikep554</author>
	<datestamp>1258050780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But competing is HARD.</p><p>Getting legislation passed that legally mandates everyone do as you wish is EASY. And probably entails less cost and risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But competing is HARD.Getting legislation passed that legally mandates everyone do as you wish is EASY .
And probably entails less cost and risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But competing is HARD.Getting legislation passed that legally mandates everyone do as you wish is EASY.
And probably entails less cost and risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074642</id>
	<title>I would be all for this</title>
	<author>Drummergeek0</author>
	<datestamp>1258049460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the ports are only disabled when displaying said content. If the premium content is on demand and optional, while standard broadcast/cable channels operate the way they already do, I don't care. I already use HDMI on my cable box, and most consumers with any form of HD do as well. Component still holds on in some areas, but the worst that will happen with them is they wont get the new content, but still get what they always have until they upgrade. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ports are only disabled when displaying said content .
If the premium content is on demand and optional , while standard broadcast/cable channels operate the way they already do , I do n't care .
I already use HDMI on my cable box , and most consumers with any form of HD do as well .
Component still holds on in some areas , but the worst that will happen with them is they wont get the new content , but still get what they always have until they upgrade .
Sounds pretty reasonable to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the ports are only disabled when displaying said content.
If the premium content is on demand and optional, while standard broadcast/cable channels operate the way they already do, I don't care.
I already use HDMI on my cable box, and most consumers with any form of HD do as well.
Component still holds on in some areas, but the worst that will happen with them is they wont get the new content, but still get what they always have until they upgrade.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30081154</id>
	<title>Re:The old fashioned way</title>
	<author>IgePanda</author>
	<datestamp>1258028760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the mpaa want's people to use TV's (or other devices) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them.   If the market wants them then tally-ho.</p></div><p>I don't know who was responsible for DIVX (DIgital Video eXpress) as sold by Circuit City, but it falls into this category.  Some say this standard went the way of the 8-track, but I say that's pretty insulting to 8-tracks.  </p><p>Perhaps such a system would actually sell if they could sell the players for less than your average Blu-ray unit.  But I'm finding it doubtful.  </p><p>What WOULD be a good bet for the MPAA would be digital content delivery, a service that could be integrated into newer sets and don't bother producing box players.  No worry about closing the analog hole if it's a set specific feature.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the mpaa want 's people to use TV 's ( or other devices ) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them .
If the market wants them then tally-ho.I do n't know who was responsible for DIVX ( DIgital Video eXpress ) as sold by Circuit City , but it falls into this category .
Some say this standard went the way of the 8-track , but I say that 's pretty insulting to 8-tracks .
Perhaps such a system would actually sell if they could sell the players for less than your average Blu-ray unit .
But I 'm finding it doubtful .
What WOULD be a good bet for the MPAA would be digital content delivery , a service that could be integrated into newer sets and do n't bother producing box players .
No worry about closing the analog hole if it 's a set specific feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the mpaa want's people to use TV's (or other devices) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them.
If the market wants them then tally-ho.I don't know who was responsible for DIVX (DIgital Video eXpress) as sold by Circuit City, but it falls into this category.
Some say this standard went the way of the 8-track, but I say that's pretty insulting to 8-tracks.
Perhaps such a system would actually sell if they could sell the players for less than your average Blu-ray unit.
But I'm finding it doubtful.
What WOULD be a good bet for the MPAA would be digital content delivery, a service that could be integrated into newer sets and don't bother producing box players.
No worry about closing the analog hole if it's a set specific feature.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30082986</id>
	<title>Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1258042140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would agree if there was any indication that the restriction technologies were in place in any advertisement or specification for the device.  Guess what?  I have never, in my entire life, walked into an electronics store and seen any indication that any device has any copy restriction technologies embedded -- even devices that I personally know could not be legally produced without such technologies.<br> <br>

Even if you accept the idea that consumers are voting "with their dollars," they are not being told what they are getting.  When a consumer buys a DVD player, they are not consenting to the restriction technology, because they are not ever made aware that the technology is there.  It is not a question of poor education, it is a question of incomplete specifications, or if you are a pessimist, false advertising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree if there was any indication that the restriction technologies were in place in any advertisement or specification for the device .
Guess what ?
I have never , in my entire life , walked into an electronics store and seen any indication that any device has any copy restriction technologies embedded -- even devices that I personally know could not be legally produced without such technologies .
Even if you accept the idea that consumers are voting " with their dollars , " they are not being told what they are getting .
When a consumer buys a DVD player , they are not consenting to the restriction technology , because they are not ever made aware that the technology is there .
It is not a question of poor education , it is a question of incomplete specifications , or if you are a pessimist , false advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree if there was any indication that the restriction technologies were in place in any advertisement or specification for the device.
Guess what?
I have never, in my entire life, walked into an electronics store and seen any indication that any device has any copy restriction technologies embedded -- even devices that I personally know could not be legally produced without such technologies.
Even if you accept the idea that consumers are voting "with their dollars," they are not being told what they are getting.
When a consumer buys a DVD player, they are not consenting to the restriction technology, because they are not ever made aware that the technology is there.
It is not a question of poor education, it is a question of incomplete specifications, or if you are a pessimist, false advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074230</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1258048080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems like another non-issue.  I'm not sure why it would even be illegal to enter into a contract that allows the content provider to do this.  Is there something to this issue that I'm missing?<br>Perhaps there is concern that providers will begin to offer content only under these terms, thus eliminating the use of the analog port?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like another non-issue .
I 'm not sure why it would even be illegal to enter into a contract that allows the content provider to do this .
Is there something to this issue that I 'm missing ? Perhaps there is concern that providers will begin to offer content only under these terms , thus eliminating the use of the analog port ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like another non-issue.
I'm not sure why it would even be illegal to enter into a contract that allows the content provider to do this.
Is there something to this issue that I'm missing?Perhaps there is concern that providers will begin to offer content only under these terms, thus eliminating the use of the analog port?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076914</id>
	<title>Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1258056360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We were early HDTV adopters.  Our perfectly-good six-year-old plasma TV has DVI and component only, no HDMI.  I use component from our cable box since it has only component and HDMI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We were early HDTV adopters .
Our perfectly-good six-year-old plasma TV has DVI and component only , no HDMI .
I use component from our cable box since it has only component and HDMI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were early HDTV adopters.
Our perfectly-good six-year-old plasma TV has DVI and component only, no HDMI.
I use component from our cable box since it has only component and HDMI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30080064</id>
	<title>It's probably not a conspiracy...</title>
	<author>alexhmit01</author>
	<datestamp>1258024200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's probably the fact that the people who decide what to do with the government, and the people who research piracy and its effects on markets, don't really talk to each other, or even like each other for that matter.  Some 25 drone in marketing is compiling the stats in spreadsheets that nobody looks at.  By the time it moves up the line, the story seen at the C-level isn't "most piracy occurs pre-release," the story is "we need to work on pre-release security, but only the FCC can plug the analog hole."</p><p>The people talking to people in Washington are hired guns, and the person doing the hiring couldn't be further in the organization than the drone crunching the numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably the fact that the people who decide what to do with the government , and the people who research piracy and its effects on markets , do n't really talk to each other , or even like each other for that matter .
Some 25 drone in marketing is compiling the stats in spreadsheets that nobody looks at .
By the time it moves up the line , the story seen at the C-level is n't " most piracy occurs pre-release , " the story is " we need to work on pre-release security , but only the FCC can plug the analog hole .
" The people talking to people in Washington are hired guns , and the person doing the hiring could n't be further in the organization than the drone crunching the numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably the fact that the people who decide what to do with the government, and the people who research piracy and its effects on markets, don't really talk to each other, or even like each other for that matter.
Some 25 drone in marketing is compiling the stats in spreadsheets that nobody looks at.
By the time it moves up the line, the story seen at the C-level isn't "most piracy occurs pre-release," the story is "we need to work on pre-release security, but only the FCC can plug the analog hole.
"The people talking to people in Washington are hired guns, and the person doing the hiring couldn't be further in the organization than the drone crunching the numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240</id>
	<title>What's the point?</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1258048140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they want to force people to get rid of old TVs, they won't succeed. Because instead of spending the $1k or more on a new TV, they'll probably buy stuff like an HD-Fury2 so they can continue using their older HDTV set.</p><p>The Hauppage HD-PVR has been around a long while now, sure it only does component, but so do many older TVs. Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 can't fix.</p><p>So what, exactly, does this do again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want to force people to get rid of old TVs , they wo n't succeed .
Because instead of spending the $ 1k or more on a new TV , they 'll probably buy stuff like an HD-Fury2 so they can continue using their older HDTV set.The Hauppage HD-PVR has been around a long while now , sure it only does component , but so do many older TVs .
Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 ca n't fix.So what , exactly , does this do again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want to force people to get rid of old TVs, they won't succeed.
Because instead of spending the $1k or more on a new TV, they'll probably buy stuff like an HD-Fury2 so they can continue using their older HDTV set.The Hauppage HD-PVR has been around a long while now, sure it only does component, but so do many older TVs.
Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 can't fix.So what, exactly, does this do again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074730</id>
	<title>The MPAA Stimulus Package</title>
	<author>A\_Mythago</author>
	<datestamp>1258049640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, this is a great idea!  By giving the ability to close the analog hole they can drive an increase of the purchase of HDMI capable televisions in this country and improve retail sales throughout the country.  This will help save and/or create jobs at high paying employers such as Walmart, getting more money flowing to the entertainment industry.</p><p>Sure it might affect your grandparents or people too poor to afford a new TV but then again they would not be buying these premium services anyway.  Just a 1 percent jobs increase would give us 14,000 jobs at Walmart alone making it well worth the minor inconveniencing of a few people.</p><p>It is our patriotic duty to contact the FCC and support SOC.  Forget the rhetoric about corporate profits and control and think of the little people.</p><p>Stimulate the economy by stimulating the MPAA...everyone wins!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this is a great idea !
By giving the ability to close the analog hole they can drive an increase of the purchase of HDMI capable televisions in this country and improve retail sales throughout the country .
This will help save and/or create jobs at high paying employers such as Walmart , getting more money flowing to the entertainment industry.Sure it might affect your grandparents or people too poor to afford a new TV but then again they would not be buying these premium services anyway .
Just a 1 percent jobs increase would give us 14,000 jobs at Walmart alone making it well worth the minor inconveniencing of a few people.It is our patriotic duty to contact the FCC and support SOC .
Forget the rhetoric about corporate profits and control and think of the little people.Stimulate the economy by stimulating the MPAA...everyone wins !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this is a great idea!
By giving the ability to close the analog hole they can drive an increase of the purchase of HDMI capable televisions in this country and improve retail sales throughout the country.
This will help save and/or create jobs at high paying employers such as Walmart, getting more money flowing to the entertainment industry.Sure it might affect your grandparents or people too poor to afford a new TV but then again they would not be buying these premium services anyway.
Just a 1 percent jobs increase would give us 14,000 jobs at Walmart alone making it well worth the minor inconveniencing of a few people.It is our patriotic duty to contact the FCC and support SOC.
Forget the rhetoric about corporate profits and control and think of the little people.Stimulate the economy by stimulating the MPAA...everyone wins!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074834</id>
	<title>Re:What's the point?</title>
	<author>odourpreventer</author>
	<datestamp>1258050000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So what, exactly, does this do again?</p><p>My guess: Nothing on its own, but it's a tiny piece of legislation to add to other tiny pieces, and slowly the mole-hill becomes a mountain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So what , exactly , does this do again ? My guess : Nothing on its own , but it 's a tiny piece of legislation to add to other tiny pieces , and slowly the mole-hill becomes a mountain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So what, exactly, does this do again?My guess: Nothing on its own, but it's a tiny piece of legislation to add to other tiny pieces, and slowly the mole-hill becomes a mountain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075126</id>
	<title>Spoiled little children</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1258050660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.</p></div><p>In other words, if they don't get their way, they're going to take their ball and go home. Wah.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers.In other words , if they do n't get their way , they 're going to take their ball and go home .
Wah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.In other words, if they don't get their way, they're going to take their ball and go home.
Wah.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074006</id>
	<title>OK if...</title>
	<author>jquest</author>
	<datestamp>1258047300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be OK with something like this IF the MPAA was required to always offer the movies for rental at or below the lowest price from ANY country that the movie is offered in.  Then something like this might be ok...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be OK with something like this IF the MPAA was required to always offer the movies for rental at or below the lowest price from ANY country that the movie is offered in .
Then something like this might be ok.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be OK with something like this IF the MPAA was required to always offer the movies for rental at or below the lowest price from ANY country that the movie is offered in.
Then something like this might be ok...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074186</id>
	<title>I don't have a tv, so I could care less.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hearing that the MPAA wants control over TV ports is like hearing that the local<br>sewage treatment plant wants to be sure no one can eat shit for free.</p><p>Honestly, you'd have to be an idiot to even care about what you can watch on<br>TV. Every bit of it is utter crap, tuned to the attention span of a mindless fool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hearing that the MPAA wants control over TV ports is like hearing that the localsewage treatment plant wants to be sure no one can eat shit for free.Honestly , you 'd have to be an idiot to even care about what you can watch onTV .
Every bit of it is utter crap , tuned to the attention span of a mindless fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hearing that the MPAA wants control over TV ports is like hearing that the localsewage treatment plant wants to be sure no one can eat shit for free.Honestly, you'd have to be an idiot to even care about what you can watch onTV.
Every bit of it is utter crap, tuned to the attention span of a mindless fool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30084218</id>
	<title>Oh hell no</title>
	<author>Criton</author>
	<datestamp>1258143060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To the MPAA on wanting to control my ports.
FUCK YOU!
 I mean seriously fuck you with an Ares rocket as that should be big enough for your filthy hole.

This is a lets gather up the torches and pitch forks and storm their castles kinda thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To the MPAA on wanting to control my ports .
FUCK YOU !
I mean seriously fuck you with an Ares rocket as that should be big enough for your filthy hole .
This is a lets gather up the torches and pitch forks and storm their castles kinda thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the MPAA on wanting to control my ports.
FUCK YOU!
I mean seriously fuck you with an Ares rocket as that should be big enough for your filthy hole.
This is a lets gather up the torches and pitch forks and storm their castles kinda thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074844</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1258050000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Censoring spoilers?  Allowing them to disable our ability to speak about a movie via some sort of implant?  Chargin us every time we mention a movie?  Ridiculous.  I wish they would just shut up and produce content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Censoring spoilers ?
Allowing them to disable our ability to speak about a movie via some sort of implant ?
Chargin us every time we mention a movie ?
Ridiculous. I wish they would just shut up and produce content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Censoring spoilers?
Allowing them to disable our ability to speak about a movie via some sort of implant?
Chargin us every time we mention a movie?
Ridiculous.  I wish they would just shut up and produce content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102</id>
	<title>Mistaking "could" and "would"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.</p></div><p>The ability to turn those plugs on and off would not affect their ability ("could offer") to offer more goods to consumers, it might affect their willingness ("would offer") to offer more goods to consumers. However, I think the reason they used the words they did is because they don't necessarily want to offer more goods to the consumer, they just want more control over the consumer.<br>
The MAFIAA has this idea that since they can't control what you do with the product once they let you have it (and thus possibly allow someone to gain access to it without paying them), they should do without the money they would make by selling it to you in the first place. <br>
Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers.The ability to turn those plugs on and off would not affect their ability ( " could offer " ) to offer more goods to consumers , it might affect their willingness ( " would offer " ) to offer more goods to consumers .
However , I think the reason they used the words they did is because they do n't necessarily want to offer more goods to the consumer , they just want more control over the consumer .
The MAFIAA has this idea that since they ca n't control what you do with the product once they let you have it ( and thus possibly allow someone to gain access to it without paying them ) , they should do without the money they would make by selling it to you in the first place .
Further , as they tighten their control over the products they sell , they ca n't understand why they are selling less and less of that product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.The ability to turn those plugs on and off would not affect their ability ("could offer") to offer more goods to consumers, it might affect their willingness ("would offer") to offer more goods to consumers.
However, I think the reason they used the words they did is because they don't necessarily want to offer more goods to the consumer, they just want more control over the consumer.
The MAFIAA has this idea that since they can't control what you do with the product once they let you have it (and thus possibly allow someone to gain access to it without paying them), they should do without the money they would make by selling it to you in the first place.
Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077698</id>
	<title>There's a fundamental error in our approach.</title>
	<author>aaandre</author>
	<datestamp>1258059060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is  getting ridiculous. The MPAA is waging a war on the People.</p><p>The fundamental error in our (the People's) approach to the situation, is that we are on the offense. We only acknowledge the activity of this entity when it pokes us in one way or another. This is a very weak strategy.</p><p>The only way to cause a significant change in the current balance is to address the existence of the MPAA and all laws it bought as unconstitutional. Until we put this entity out of existence we are only fighting the symptoms. It is the Hydra with a thousand heads, ten new ones growing up when you cut off one.</p><p>Yes, artists should have representation. There is space for a (non-profit) organization representing artists' rights with integrity and core understanding of the changes in distribution models caused by technology advances. MPAA, a cancerous, mutated, evil abomination trying its best to control and criminalize the public for profit does not fulfill that function.</p><p>I am not a lawyer but I would gladly give my $10-$100 to a team ready to to take on wiping off this toxic monster. It is something that should not exist,l and we know it. Still, we focus on its deeds and not its existence. Let's step up our efficiency and go for the kill. Artists are ready to be embraced by the public and be supported for their gift.</p><p>And, if it takes some civil disobedience, if it takes (loudly!) never buying anything from represented artists, so be it. It is as important to give artists alternatives.</p><p>I've been wondering for a while, is there a way to donate to the artists directly? If I bought The Dark Side of the moon for $0.50 from a yard sale and I want to show my gratitude to the artists, how do I do it? Not interested in giving $10 to suits in order to give $1 or $4 (itunes)  to the artists. I want my $10 to go to them. How do I do it?</p><p>Maybe we can start with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is getting ridiculous .
The MPAA is waging a war on the People.The fundamental error in our ( the People 's ) approach to the situation , is that we are on the offense .
We only acknowledge the activity of this entity when it pokes us in one way or another .
This is a very weak strategy.The only way to cause a significant change in the current balance is to address the existence of the MPAA and all laws it bought as unconstitutional .
Until we put this entity out of existence we are only fighting the symptoms .
It is the Hydra with a thousand heads , ten new ones growing up when you cut off one.Yes , artists should have representation .
There is space for a ( non-profit ) organization representing artists ' rights with integrity and core understanding of the changes in distribution models caused by technology advances .
MPAA , a cancerous , mutated , evil abomination trying its best to control and criminalize the public for profit does not fulfill that function.I am not a lawyer but I would gladly give my $ 10- $ 100 to a team ready to to take on wiping off this toxic monster .
It is something that should not exist,l and we know it .
Still , we focus on its deeds and not its existence .
Let 's step up our efficiency and go for the kill .
Artists are ready to be embraced by the public and be supported for their gift.And , if it takes some civil disobedience , if it takes ( loudly !
) never buying anything from represented artists , so be it .
It is as important to give artists alternatives.I 've been wondering for a while , is there a way to donate to the artists directly ?
If I bought The Dark Side of the moon for $ 0.50 from a yard sale and I want to show my gratitude to the artists , how do I do it ?
Not interested in giving $ 10 to suits in order to give $ 1 or $ 4 ( itunes ) to the artists .
I want my $ 10 to go to them .
How do I do it ? Maybe we can start with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is  getting ridiculous.
The MPAA is waging a war on the People.The fundamental error in our (the People's) approach to the situation, is that we are on the offense.
We only acknowledge the activity of this entity when it pokes us in one way or another.
This is a very weak strategy.The only way to cause a significant change in the current balance is to address the existence of the MPAA and all laws it bought as unconstitutional.
Until we put this entity out of existence we are only fighting the symptoms.
It is the Hydra with a thousand heads, ten new ones growing up when you cut off one.Yes, artists should have representation.
There is space for a (non-profit) organization representing artists' rights with integrity and core understanding of the changes in distribution models caused by technology advances.
MPAA, a cancerous, mutated, evil abomination trying its best to control and criminalize the public for profit does not fulfill that function.I am not a lawyer but I would gladly give my $10-$100 to a team ready to to take on wiping off this toxic monster.
It is something that should not exist,l and we know it.
Still, we focus on its deeds and not its existence.
Let's step up our efficiency and go for the kill.
Artists are ready to be embraced by the public and be supported for their gift.And, if it takes some civil disobedience, if it takes (loudly!
) never buying anything from represented artists, so be it.
It is as important to give artists alternatives.I've been wondering for a while, is there a way to donate to the artists directly?
If I bought The Dark Side of the moon for $0.50 from a yard sale and I want to show my gratitude to the artists, how do I do it?
Not interested in giving $10 to suits in order to give $1 or $4 (itunes)  to the artists.
I want my $10 to go to them.
How do I do it?Maybe we can start with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076638</id>
	<title>I don't want their goods</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1258055340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I don't want their goods, especially under those conditions.  When you have a product that's getting progressively more mediocre, you're not in the position to make demands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want their goods , especially under those conditions .
When you have a product that 's getting progressively more mediocre , you 're not in the position to make demands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I don't want their goods, especially under those conditions.
When you have a product that's getting progressively more mediocre, you're not in the position to make demands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272</id>
	<title>Much Ado About MPAA</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1258048200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they prominently put a warning on the packaged product stating that the product is not suitable for analog output, that would be okay with me.</p><p>It's kind of gross seeing so many slashdotters going ga ga over their "rights" in movies and music made by somebody else.</p><p>Make your own movies and music and don't buy their junk.  That's the best way to stick it to the man.  Cut yourself out of the homogenized herd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they prominently put a warning on the packaged product stating that the product is not suitable for analog output , that would be okay with me.It 's kind of gross seeing so many slashdotters going ga ga over their " rights " in movies and music made by somebody else.Make your own movies and music and do n't buy their junk .
That 's the best way to stick it to the man .
Cut yourself out of the homogenized herd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they prominently put a warning on the packaged product stating that the product is not suitable for analog output, that would be okay with me.It's kind of gross seeing so many slashdotters going ga ga over their "rights" in movies and music made by somebody else.Make your own movies and music and don't buy their junk.
That's the best way to stick it to the man.
Cut yourself out of the homogenized herd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30086246</id>
	<title>Re:TV "Hood" Analog Hole</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1258125300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No need to wait until the screen produces light, and camcord that. You can get a much better result electrically: every LCD-based display has some chip that drives the individual pixels. That chip's output is by design a high quality unencrypted electrical signal... that can be easily captured by another chip. It can be even easier than that: on some sets, at least two ICs are being used: one to decrypt the DRMed signal, and another IC to drive the pixels. Both ICs communicate over a bus, and their messages must be unencrypted. That too can be easily sniffed off the bus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to wait until the screen produces light , and camcord that .
You can get a much better result electrically : every LCD-based display has some chip that drives the individual pixels .
That chip 's output is by design a high quality unencrypted electrical signal... that can be easily captured by another chip .
It can be even easier than that : on some sets , at least two ICs are being used : one to decrypt the DRMed signal , and another IC to drive the pixels .
Both ICs communicate over a bus , and their messages must be unencrypted .
That too can be easily sniffed off the bus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need to wait until the screen produces light, and camcord that.
You can get a much better result electrically: every LCD-based display has some chip that drives the individual pixels.
That chip's output is by design a high quality unencrypted electrical signal... that can be easily captured by another chip.
It can be even easier than that: on some sets, at least two ICs are being used: one to decrypt the DRMed signal, and another IC to drive the pixels.
Both ICs communicate over a bus, and their messages must be unencrypted.
That too can be easily sniffed off the bus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076786</id>
	<title>Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1258055820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No kidding. No need to turn off any ports. Hollywood can deter me from pirating a movie simply by the words "A Michael Bay Film" to the opening of any movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
No need to turn off any ports .
Hollywood can deter me from pirating a movie simply by the words " A Michael Bay Film " to the opening of any movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
No need to turn off any ports.
Hollywood can deter me from pirating a movie simply by the words "A Michael Bay Film" to the opening of any movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074308</id>
	<title>Selective Control</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1258048260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     I would like selective control over the coherent intellegence knob at the MafiAA. Someone needs to spray a little cleaner in there so it can be unstuck and turned up to an acceptable level. Also the mute button should be engaged so my tax paid courts quit wasting time on another dying industry. Just let it die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like selective control over the coherent intellegence knob at the MafiAA .
Someone needs to spray a little cleaner in there so it can be unstuck and turned up to an acceptable level .
Also the mute button should be engaged so my tax paid courts quit wasting time on another dying industry .
Just let it die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     I would like selective control over the coherent intellegence knob at the MafiAA.
Someone needs to spray a little cleaner in there so it can be unstuck and turned up to an acceptable level.
Also the mute button should be engaged so my tax paid courts quit wasting time on another dying industry.
Just let it die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075314</id>
	<title>Movie industry opportunities with this technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258051200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is guys, if they get this ability, their options for selling their product will increase.</p><p>I am not an expert, I just want to make an observation.</p><p>I say this after recently hearing an outspoken business man up here in Canada say that he'd be willing to pay big to see a movie the day it was released if he could see it in his own home.  Away from the kid with the runny nose sitting beside him.<br>He said he'd pay $100.</p><p>Understandably, many in the 'tech' or 'slashdot' community resist any controls whatsoever on this sort of thing.  But don't forget that you are perfectly within your right to just stop buying anything from a company that does something you disagree with.</p><p>Here's the link to the video of this guy I am referring to (the relevant statement is at around minute 13:00) :<br>http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV\_Shows/Lang\_&amp;\_O\%27Leary\_Exchange/ID=1326461033</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is guys , if they get this ability , their options for selling their product will increase.I am not an expert , I just want to make an observation.I say this after recently hearing an outspoken business man up here in Canada say that he 'd be willing to pay big to see a movie the day it was released if he could see it in his own home .
Away from the kid with the runny nose sitting beside him.He said he 'd pay $ 100.Understandably , many in the 'tech ' or 'slashdot ' community resist any controls whatsoever on this sort of thing .
But do n't forget that you are perfectly within your right to just stop buying anything from a company that does something you disagree with.Here 's the link to the video of this guy I am referring to ( the relevant statement is at around minute 13 : 00 ) : http : //www.cbc.ca/video/ # /News/TV \ _Shows/Lang \ _&amp; \ _O \ % 27Leary \ _Exchange/ID = 1326461033</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is guys, if they get this ability, their options for selling their product will increase.I am not an expert, I just want to make an observation.I say this after recently hearing an outspoken business man up here in Canada say that he'd be willing to pay big to see a movie the day it was released if he could see it in his own home.
Away from the kid with the runny nose sitting beside him.He said he'd pay $100.Understandably, many in the 'tech' or 'slashdot' community resist any controls whatsoever on this sort of thing.
But don't forget that you are perfectly within your right to just stop buying anything from a company that does something you disagree with.Here's the link to the video of this guy I am referring to (the relevant statement is at around minute 13:00) :http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV\_Shows/Lang\_&amp;\_O\%27Leary\_Exchange/ID=1326461033</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30081364</id>
	<title>Another Nail</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1258029960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the coffin of my Television watching, which I pretty much gave up 4 years ago when it turned out that the same damn show was on half the cable channels I was getting. "I'm Sorry Dave. But I can't do that". Well you happen to be my equipment and you will do exactly what I say, even if it means accepting 5KT of TNT and attempting to reach extra-solar velocities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the coffin of my Television watching , which I pretty much gave up 4 years ago when it turned out that the same damn show was on half the cable channels I was getting .
" I 'm Sorry Dave .
But I ca n't do that " .
Well you happen to be my equipment and you will do exactly what I say , even if it means accepting 5KT of TNT and attempting to reach extra-solar velocities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the coffin of my Television watching, which I pretty much gave up 4 years ago when it turned out that the same damn show was on half the cable channels I was getting.
"I'm Sorry Dave.
But I can't do that".
Well you happen to be my equipment and you will do exactly what I say, even if it means accepting 5KT of TNT and attempting to reach extra-solar velocities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075300</id>
	<title>Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1258051140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...</p></div></blockquote><p>HDCP broken on a consumer level?<br>Please do tell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI 's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...HDCP broken on a consumer level ? Please do tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...HDCP broken on a consumer level?Please do tell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075062</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>sricetx</author>
	<datestamp>1258050480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know.</i>
<br> <br>I would think that the Hauppauge.com HD PVR <a href="http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data\_hdpvr.html" title="hauppauge.com">http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data\_hdpvr.html</a> [hauppauge.com] would do the trick, as long as you have a video card that supports component output.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams ( either via webpage or their desktop app ) , I 'd love to know .
I would think that the Hauppauge.com HD PVR http : //www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data \ _hdpvr.html [ hauppauge.com ] would do the trick , as long as you have a video card that supports component output .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know.
I would think that the Hauppauge.com HD PVR http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data\_hdpvr.html [hauppauge.com] would do the trick, as long as you have a video card that supports component output.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074360</id>
	<title>What exactly are they asking for??</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1258048440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just read the article and I don't get what the MPAA is even asking for?</p><p>How in the world would they shut off my TV's inputs?<br>AFAIK, component cables do not provide any control or data link to the TV.</p><p>Obviously, if my cable provider wanted to shut off the analog OUTPUTS of the cable box they rent to me, they can do that.</p><p>What are we talking about here?????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just read the article and I do n't get what the MPAA is even asking for ? How in the world would they shut off my TV 's inputs ? AFAIK , component cables do not provide any control or data link to the TV.Obviously , if my cable provider wanted to shut off the analog OUTPUTS of the cable box they rent to me , they can do that.What are we talking about here ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just read the article and I don't get what the MPAA is even asking for?How in the world would they shut off my TV's inputs?AFAIK, component cables do not provide any control or data link to the TV.Obviously, if my cable provider wanted to shut off the analog OUTPUTS of the cable box they rent to me, they can do that.What are we talking about here????
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075130</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258050720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You filthy pirate. The only reason to watch TV on a computer is to rip off the media industry. Why don't you just pay lots of money to the cable/satellite company for their shitty DVR like everyone else? &lt;/sarcasm&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>You filthy pirate .
The only reason to watch TV on a computer is to rip off the media industry .
Why do n't you just pay lots of money to the cable/satellite company for their shitty DVR like everyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You filthy pirate.
The only reason to watch TV on a computer is to rip off the media industry.
Why don't you just pay lots of money to the cable/satellite company for their shitty DVR like everyone else? </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075324</id>
	<title>No Digital Inputs Available</title>
	<author>Prototerm</author>
	<datestamp>1258051200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hollywood lives in a fantasy world where everyone buys the latest and greatest equipment as soon as it comes on the market. The reality is that there are a lot of people who do not have digital HDMI equipment, don't need it, and don't want it. And don't kid yourselves that this new restriction will be limited to those new movies. The moment Cable companies have the ability to turn off your analog outputs, there will be whole cable networks that will switch them off 24/7 (with the option to have them switched back on for $15 a month). Starting, of course, with the new Comcast/NBC cable networks.</p><p>Here's a message for the FCC: Please nip this in the bud now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hollywood lives in a fantasy world where everyone buys the latest and greatest equipment as soon as it comes on the market .
The reality is that there are a lot of people who do not have digital HDMI equipment , do n't need it , and do n't want it .
And do n't kid yourselves that this new restriction will be limited to those new movies .
The moment Cable companies have the ability to turn off your analog outputs , there will be whole cable networks that will switch them off 24/7 ( with the option to have them switched back on for $ 15 a month ) .
Starting , of course , with the new Comcast/NBC cable networks.Here 's a message for the FCC : Please nip this in the bud now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hollywood lives in a fantasy world where everyone buys the latest and greatest equipment as soon as it comes on the market.
The reality is that there are a lot of people who do not have digital HDMI equipment, don't need it, and don't want it.
And don't kid yourselves that this new restriction will be limited to those new movies.
The moment Cable companies have the ability to turn off your analog outputs, there will be whole cable networks that will switch them off 24/7 (with the option to have them switched back on for $15 a month).
Starting, of course, with the new Comcast/NBC cable networks.Here's a message for the FCC: Please nip this in the bud now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074236</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1258048140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say we just let them suffer until they HAVE to bring new products and services, and they still don't get to muck with my Tv hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we just let them suffer until they HAVE to bring new products and services , and they still do n't get to muck with my Tv hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we just let them suffer until they HAVE to bring new products and services, and they still don't get to muck with my Tv hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30085544</id>
	<title>No mistaking between "could" and "would"</title>
	<author>buntsai</author>
	<datestamp>1258119900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I agree with you that the <em>"could"</em> is not being used by mistake. <em>"Would"</em> (conditional tense) implies intent, a promise that they are going to offer more goods, if the ability to turn plugs on and off were provided first.<br> <br>

The use of <em>"could"</em> means that the MPAA are going to be in a position to offer more goods to consumers. If they decide not to offer more goods after all, should they gain the ability to turn plugs on and off, they would not have reneged on any implicit commitments.<br> <br>

In English, the MPAA phrasing also implies that one ("more goods to consumers") follows so naturally
and logically from the premise ("give me the power to turn plugs on and off") that no explicit additional promise needs to be made. These sneaky subtleties are what make English fun and infuriating in equal measure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
I agree with you that the " could " is not being used by mistake .
" Would " ( conditional tense ) implies intent , a promise that they are going to offer more goods , if the ability to turn plugs on and off were provided first .
The use of " could " means that the MPAA are going to be in a position to offer more goods to consumers .
If they decide not to offer more goods after all , should they gain the ability to turn plugs on and off , they would not have reneged on any implicit commitments .
In English , the MPAA phrasing also implies that one ( " more goods to consumers " ) follows so naturally and logically from the premise ( " give me the power to turn plugs on and off " ) that no explicit additional promise needs to be made .
These sneaky subtleties are what make English fun and infuriating in equal measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
I agree with you that the "could" is not being used by mistake.
"Would" (conditional tense) implies intent, a promise that they are going to offer more goods, if the ability to turn plugs on and off were provided first.
The use of "could" means that the MPAA are going to be in a position to offer more goods to consumers.
If they decide not to offer more goods after all, should they gain the ability to turn plugs on and off, they would not have reneged on any implicit commitments.
In English, the MPAA phrasing also implies that one ("more goods to consumers") follows so naturally
and logically from the premise ("give me the power to turn plugs on and off") that no explicit additional promise needs to be made.
These sneaky subtleties are what make English fun and infuriating in equal measure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075072</id>
	<title>They could offer more good to me...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1258050480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if they had electronic access to my bank accounts AND credit accounts.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they had the keys to my house.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they had the keys to my car.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they had direct access to my computers.</p><p>or,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they had more interesting and desirable content to offer me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they charged a somewhat more reasonable price for their current content.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they made it easier for me to get what I was interested in.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they focused on value and quality.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they opened distribution to more providers.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they focused less on prosecuting innocent people, and more on their business.</p><p>Sheesh.  Epic Fail To Get It.  Are we gonna have to write to the FCC and remind them how stupid this is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if they had electronic access to my bank accounts AND credit accounts .
... if they had the keys to my house .
... if they had the keys to my car .
... if they had direct access to my computers.or , ... if they had more interesting and desirable content to offer me .
... if they charged a somewhat more reasonable price for their current content .
... if they made it easier for me to get what I was interested in .
... if they focused on value and quality .
... if they opened distribution to more providers .
... if they focused less on prosecuting innocent people , and more on their business.Sheesh .
Epic Fail To Get It .
Are we gon na have to write to the FCC and remind them how stupid this is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if they had electronic access to my bank accounts AND credit accounts.
... if they had the keys to my house.
... if they had the keys to my car.
... if they had direct access to my computers.or, ... if they had more interesting and desirable content to offer me.
... if they charged a somewhat more reasonable price for their current content.
... if they made it easier for me to get what I was interested in.
... if they focused on value and quality.
... if they opened distribution to more providers.
... if they focused less on prosecuting innocent people, and more on their business.Sheesh.
Epic Fail To Get It.
Are we gonna have to write to the FCC and remind them how stupid this is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074314</id>
	<title>Missing goods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258048260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what wonderful "goods" we missed because the MPAA lost the VCR fight, and were unable to offer these things to consumers.  I wonder what goods they can't offer now, and if, in the future, another technological advance happens that they can't control, if they will be able to offer anything at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what wonderful " goods " we missed because the MPAA lost the VCR fight , and were unable to offer these things to consumers .
I wonder what goods they ca n't offer now , and if , in the future , another technological advance happens that they ca n't control , if they will be able to offer anything at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what wonderful "goods" we missed because the MPAA lost the VCR fight, and were unable to offer these things to consumers.
I wonder what goods they can't offer now, and if, in the future, another technological advance happens that they can't control, if they will be able to offer anything at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075636</id>
	<title>Re:Much Ado About MPAA</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1258052100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's kind of gross seeing so many slashdotters going ga ga over their "rights" in movies and music made by somebody else.</p></div></blockquote><p>
It's my tv. I bought it, I paid for it. I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it, including throwing it out the window if that pleases me. I didn't lease it, I didn't take it home with a 'license' to use it in narrowly defined ways, I <b>bought</b> it.  I <b>own</b> it. And now they want to take functionality away from it so it won't do what I bought it to do?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's kind of gross seeing so many slashdotters going ga ga over their " rights " in movies and music made by somebody else .
It 's my tv .
I bought it , I paid for it .
I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it , including throwing it out the window if that pleases me .
I did n't lease it , I did n't take it home with a 'license ' to use it in narrowly defined ways , I bought it .
I own it .
And now they want to take functionality away from it so it wo n't do what I bought it to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's kind of gross seeing so many slashdotters going ga ga over their "rights" in movies and music made by somebody else.
It's my tv.
I bought it, I paid for it.
I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it, including throwing it out the window if that pleases me.
I didn't lease it, I didn't take it home with a 'license' to use it in narrowly defined ways, I bought it.
I own it.
And now they want to take functionality away from it so it won't do what I bought it to do?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074246</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1258048140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorta maybe. Its a total sidestep of the issue. The problem is that neither the content providers nor the device makers have really ANY incentive to educate consumers as to the difference. Rather than a balanced idea of what you are giving up vs what you may gain, they will be told "This device supports the new Recording Industry Advanced Feature HD format for the latest in crisp video and sound quality". What they wont know, unless they happen to be of the small percentage that cares to investigate, is that the "feature" they are buying into is actually a loss of feature and a relinquishing of control over their own equipment.</p><p>So long as it is legal to woefully misrepresent as long as you make vague and indefinite claims, reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work. I don't see a really good workaround for this. However, we have a rule now that blanket says they can't do it.</p><p>I think the current scheme is working, we should stick with it until the larger problem can be solved.</p><p>-Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorta maybe .
Its a total sidestep of the issue .
The problem is that neither the content providers nor the device makers have really ANY incentive to educate consumers as to the difference .
Rather than a balanced idea of what you are giving up vs what you may gain , they will be told " This device supports the new Recording Industry Advanced Feature HD format for the latest in crisp video and sound quality " .
What they wont know , unless they happen to be of the small percentage that cares to investigate , is that the " feature " they are buying into is actually a loss of feature and a relinquishing of control over their own equipment.So long as it is legal to woefully misrepresent as long as you make vague and indefinite claims , reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently does n't really work .
I do n't see a really good workaround for this .
However , we have a rule now that blanket says they ca n't do it.I think the current scheme is working , we should stick with it until the larger problem can be solved.-Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorta maybe.
Its a total sidestep of the issue.
The problem is that neither the content providers nor the device makers have really ANY incentive to educate consumers as to the difference.
Rather than a balanced idea of what you are giving up vs what you may gain, they will be told "This device supports the new Recording Industry Advanced Feature HD format for the latest in crisp video and sound quality".
What they wont know, unless they happen to be of the small percentage that cares to investigate, is that the "feature" they are buying into is actually a loss of feature and a relinquishing of control over their own equipment.So long as it is legal to woefully misrepresent as long as you make vague and indefinite claims, reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work.
I don't see a really good workaround for this.
However, we have a rule now that blanket says they can't do it.I think the current scheme is working, we should stick with it until the larger problem can be solved.-Steve</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074338</id>
	<title>Offering more goods</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1258048380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the offering more goods line is mostly a load of bunk.  But lets assume it's true.  Do we want more overpriced goods that are fundamentally lower quality because we can't use them in the way we choose within our own homes having paid for them?  Or are we happy with fewer goods which actually allow our property to function properly?</p><p>We should be able to have a full range of content without reducing the value of other, physical goods that we own.  But if we can't have that, I'd personally rather stick with current content offerings and have appliances I buy continue to work for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the offering more goods line is mostly a load of bunk .
But lets assume it 's true .
Do we want more overpriced goods that are fundamentally lower quality because we ca n't use them in the way we choose within our own homes having paid for them ?
Or are we happy with fewer goods which actually allow our property to function properly ? We should be able to have a full range of content without reducing the value of other , physical goods that we own .
But if we ca n't have that , I 'd personally rather stick with current content offerings and have appliances I buy continue to work for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the offering more goods line is mostly a load of bunk.
But lets assume it's true.
Do we want more overpriced goods that are fundamentally lower quality because we can't use them in the way we choose within our own homes having paid for them?
Or are we happy with fewer goods which actually allow our property to function properly?We should be able to have a full range of content without reducing the value of other, physical goods that we own.
But if we can't have that, I'd personally rather stick with current content offerings and have appliances I buy continue to work for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077800</id>
	<title>Is it even possible to copy/playback form analog?</title>
	<author>amigabill</author>
	<datestamp>1258059360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>During an earlier iteration of this kind of discussion, I had been pondering how to get my Laserdisc copies of the "true" Star Wars triogy (without all that messed up Special Edition crap) onto DVD. I found a Laserdisc player with Component outputs, but that might have even only been for the DVD half of a combo DVD/Laserdisc player. But I was not able to find a component "tuner" input card to capture onto. At least not anything that a mortal like me can afford. So, without being a millionaire, without engineering and building my own copying machine, and without giving an all-out howto, is there a cost-effective way for any of us, or our grandparents, to copy and play back stuff from these analog component outputs? I hesitate to ask for links to purchase the equipment, I'm mostly curious if the MPAA's claimed fears are realistic or even possible at all. If people here know it's not possible, why aren't we lobbying that fact to the congresscritters that need to know?</p><p>As for the big moneymaking pirates in Hong Kong, if they can afford to have a special analog copying machine engineered and made for their own use, they can surely also afford to have an HDMI+HDCP copying machine made up too. No law here will be able to stop the likes of them. But I really don't believe that being able to turn off HDTVs made before HDMI or HDCP and preventing legitimate customers from seeing anything is worth-while side-effect of this phantom people copying everything at home "problem".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During an earlier iteration of this kind of discussion , I had been pondering how to get my Laserdisc copies of the " true " Star Wars triogy ( without all that messed up Special Edition crap ) onto DVD .
I found a Laserdisc player with Component outputs , but that might have even only been for the DVD half of a combo DVD/Laserdisc player .
But I was not able to find a component " tuner " input card to capture onto .
At least not anything that a mortal like me can afford .
So , without being a millionaire , without engineering and building my own copying machine , and without giving an all-out howto , is there a cost-effective way for any of us , or our grandparents , to copy and play back stuff from these analog component outputs ?
I hesitate to ask for links to purchase the equipment , I 'm mostly curious if the MPAA 's claimed fears are realistic or even possible at all .
If people here know it 's not possible , why are n't we lobbying that fact to the congresscritters that need to know ? As for the big moneymaking pirates in Hong Kong , if they can afford to have a special analog copying machine engineered and made for their own use , they can surely also afford to have an HDMI + HDCP copying machine made up too .
No law here will be able to stop the likes of them .
But I really do n't believe that being able to turn off HDTVs made before HDMI or HDCP and preventing legitimate customers from seeing anything is worth-while side-effect of this phantom people copying everything at home " problem " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During an earlier iteration of this kind of discussion, I had been pondering how to get my Laserdisc copies of the "true" Star Wars triogy (without all that messed up Special Edition crap) onto DVD.
I found a Laserdisc player with Component outputs, but that might have even only been for the DVD half of a combo DVD/Laserdisc player.
But I was not able to find a component "tuner" input card to capture onto.
At least not anything that a mortal like me can afford.
So, without being a millionaire, without engineering and building my own copying machine, and without giving an all-out howto, is there a cost-effective way for any of us, or our grandparents, to copy and play back stuff from these analog component outputs?
I hesitate to ask for links to purchase the equipment, I'm mostly curious if the MPAA's claimed fears are realistic or even possible at all.
If people here know it's not possible, why aren't we lobbying that fact to the congresscritters that need to know?As for the big moneymaking pirates in Hong Kong, if they can afford to have a special analog copying machine engineered and made for their own use, they can surely also afford to have an HDMI+HDCP copying machine made up too.
No law here will be able to stop the likes of them.
But I really don't believe that being able to turn off HDTVs made before HDMI or HDCP and preventing legitimate customers from seeing anything is worth-while side-effect of this phantom people copying everything at home "problem".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074950</id>
	<title>Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258050180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I don't understand this obsession with "the analog hole.".</p></div><p> <em>Analog Hole?</em></p><p>I always thought A-Hole was something altogether different, yet completely relevant to any conversation about the MPAA or the RIAA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand this obsession with " the analog hole. " .
Analog Hole ? I always thought A-Hole was something altogether different , yet completely relevant to any conversation about the MPAA or the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don't understand this obsession with "the analog hole.".
Analog Hole?I always thought A-Hole was something altogether different, yet completely relevant to any conversation about the MPAA or the RIAA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076790</id>
	<title>the MPAA can just keep their goods</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1258055880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have not watched a hollywood movie in quite a while and don't miss them for this exact reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have not watched a hollywood movie in quite a while and do n't miss them for this exact reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have not watched a hollywood movie in quite a while and don't miss them for this exact reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075986</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1258053240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't think why they'd even care about the analog hole any more,</p> </div><p>Because they can make it prohibitively difficult to make digital copies, but analog copies are always within the reach of the average person.  Those "click-and-leech digital copies" may have come from the analog hole.  So they are trying to stop things at the source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think why they 'd even care about the analog hole any more , Because they can make it prohibitively difficult to make digital copies , but analog copies are always within the reach of the average person .
Those " click-and-leech digital copies " may have come from the analog hole .
So they are trying to stop things at the source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think why they'd even care about the analog hole any more, Because they can make it prohibitively difficult to make digital copies, but analog copies are always within the reach of the average person.
Those "click-and-leech digital copies" may have come from the analog hole.
So they are trying to stop things at the source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075160</id>
	<title>Ok, give me a list</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1258050780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.</i></p><p>Ok, I want a list of goods that it is impossible for you to offer now, but would be possible by turning off the analog ports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers.Ok , I want a list of goods that it is impossible for you to offer now , but would be possible by turning off the analog ports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.Ok, I want a list of goods that it is impossible for you to offer now, but would be possible by turning off the analog ports.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30080816</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>dweller\_below</author>
	<datestamp>1258027140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your perspective is too short term. If some office of the government is attempting to control the limits of action of the MPAA, the MPAA's next step is to achieve control of that office. It's called Bureaucratic Capture ( <a href="http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/1998-March/040535.html" title="greenend.org.uk">http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/1998-March/040535.html</a> [greenend.org.uk] ) and it's the best possible outcome from the point of view of the MPAA.</p><p>Continually asking for the same thing is one of the first steps. Eventually the MPAA will get everything they want and much more. The process is slow, but almost inevitable.</p><p>Many groups fault civil libertarians for being unflexible. But, in these conflicts and on long timescales, you have to be unflexible on defense and relentless on offense. It's like fighting with a one-way ratchet. Once you go on defense, you always lose ground. You have to refuse to yeild until you can get back on offense.</p><p>Miles</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your perspective is too short term .
If some office of the government is attempting to control the limits of action of the MPAA , the MPAA 's next step is to achieve control of that office .
It 's called Bureaucratic Capture ( http : //www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/1998-March/040535.html [ greenend.org.uk ] ) and it 's the best possible outcome from the point of view of the MPAA.Continually asking for the same thing is one of the first steps .
Eventually the MPAA will get everything they want and much more .
The process is slow , but almost inevitable.Many groups fault civil libertarians for being unflexible .
But , in these conflicts and on long timescales , you have to be unflexible on defense and relentless on offense .
It 's like fighting with a one-way ratchet .
Once you go on defense , you always lose ground .
You have to refuse to yeild until you can get back on offense.Miles</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your perspective is too short term.
If some office of the government is attempting to control the limits of action of the MPAA, the MPAA's next step is to achieve control of that office.
It's called Bureaucratic Capture ( http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/1998-March/040535.html [greenend.org.uk] ) and it's the best possible outcome from the point of view of the MPAA.Continually asking for the same thing is one of the first steps.
Eventually the MPAA will get everything they want and much more.
The process is slow, but almost inevitable.Many groups fault civil libertarians for being unflexible.
But, in these conflicts and on long timescales, you have to be unflexible on defense and relentless on offense.
It's like fighting with a one-way ratchet.
Once you go on defense, you always lose ground.
You have to refuse to yeild until you can get back on offense.Miles</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079686</id>
	<title>Sure, looks real good.</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1258022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds more like a "You need the new high tech HDMI interface to watch this!" or "No Blu-Ray, no view today".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds more like a " You need the new high tech HDMI interface to watch this !
" or " No Blu-Ray , no view today " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds more like a "You need the new high tech HDMI interface to watch this!
" or "No Blu-Ray, no view today".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075366</id>
	<title>Why stop there</title>
	<author>Pengel the squib</author>
	<datestamp>1258051320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't we just give them direct access to our bank accounts and keys to the front door. Maybe they would be happy if they could just erase every movie from your mind after viewing then charge you extra if you want to remember it. Of course, with many movies this would be a benefit, perhaps  they will charge extra fees to remove those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we just give them direct access to our bank accounts and keys to the front door .
Maybe they would be happy if they could just erase every movie from your mind after viewing then charge you extra if you want to remember it .
Of course , with many movies this would be a benefit , perhaps they will charge extra fees to remove those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we just give them direct access to our bank accounts and keys to the front door.
Maybe they would be happy if they could just erase every movie from your mind after viewing then charge you extra if you want to remember it.
Of course, with many movies this would be a benefit, perhaps  they will charge extra fees to remove those.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079672</id>
	<title>Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1258022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies?</i></p><p>Every time they buy such a device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies ? Every time they buy such a device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies?Every time they buy such a device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118</id>
	<title>Unbelievable!</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1258047660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>    "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."</p><p>Fuck you, you fucking fucks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
" Fuck you , you fucking fucks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
"Fuck you, you fucking fucks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076196</id>
	<title>Could and would</title>
	<author>spamking</author>
	<datestamp>1258053900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they <strong>could</strong> offer more goods to consumers.</p></div><p>Could and would are two completely separate ideas . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers.Could and would are two completely separate ideas .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.Could and would are two completely separate ideas .
. .
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074342</id>
	<title>Apply the same logic to auto repair industry!</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1258048380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Groups representing public interest against these agendas (and lobbying for DMCA reform) should apply the same logic used to defend such oppression to the auto repair industry to demonstrate its absurdity.</p><p>"If only we could selectively disable people's engines, we could offer more innovative repair services to the public!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Groups representing public interest against these agendas ( and lobbying for DMCA reform ) should apply the same logic used to defend such oppression to the auto repair industry to demonstrate its absurdity .
" If only we could selectively disable people 's engines , we could offer more innovative repair services to the public !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Groups representing public interest against these agendas (and lobbying for DMCA reform) should apply the same logic used to defend such oppression to the auto repair industry to demonstrate its absurdity.
"If only we could selectively disable people's engines, we could offer more innovative repair services to the public!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074218</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1258048080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is broadcast over the airwaves then there is no way they can stop it from being copied.</p><p>This can only ever be relevant for "cable only" TV content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is broadcast over the airwaves then there is no way they can stop it from being copied.This can only ever be relevant for " cable only " TV content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is broadcast over the airwaves then there is no way they can stop it from being copied.This can only ever be relevant for "cable only" TV content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074686</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have a tv, so I could care less.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258049580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sigh...link fail.  Let's try that again:</p><p> <a href="http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/26/28-not-having-a-tv/" title="stuffwhitepeoplelike.com" rel="nofollow">Bravo, Mr. Walking Clich&#233;</a> [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com].  In your 10 o'clock show, will you discuss <a href="http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/12/03/117-political-prisoners/" title="stuffwhitepeoplelike.com" rel="nofollow">Aung San Suu Kyi</a> [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com], <a href="http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/03/05/82-hating-corporations/" title="stuffwhitepeoplelike.com" rel="nofollow">rail against multinational corporations</a> [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com], or tell us about how your <a href="http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/07/60-toyota-prius/" title="stuffwhitepeoplelike.com" rel="nofollow">hybrid</a> [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com] has an <a href="http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/30/39-apple-products/" title="stuffwhitepeoplelike.com" rel="nofollow">Apple sticker</a> [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com] on the back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh...link fail .
Let 's try that again : Bravo , Mr. Walking Clich   [ stuffwhitepeoplelike.com ] .
In your 10 o'clock show , will you discuss Aung San Suu Kyi [ stuffwhitepeoplelike.com ] , rail against multinational corporations [ stuffwhitepeoplelike.com ] , or tell us about how your hybrid [ stuffwhitepeoplelike.com ] has an Apple sticker [ stuffwhitepeoplelike.com ] on the back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh...link fail.
Let's try that again: Bravo, Mr. Walking Cliché [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com].
In your 10 o'clock show, will you discuss Aung San Suu Kyi [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com], rail against multinational corporations [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com], or tell us about how your hybrid [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com] has an Apple sticker [stuffwhitepeoplelike.com] on the back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075842</id>
	<title>Huge Flaw...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258052820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a HUGE FLAW with this...  If they can choose to disable analog connections...  Then most Cable TV users will be screwed!</p><p>When I got 3 HD Cable Boxes, They did not connect them to my TV via HDMI, they connected them via 5 RCA Cables!  (3 for video, and 2 for audio)  When I asked them, they said that these cables were cheaper than the HDMI ones (Which is BS I order HDMI cables off Amazon.com for $8 each), and that it worked with all TV's.</p><p>So if the MPAA get their way, then when the analog ports are turned off, MOST cable users will see NOTHING!</p><p>Plus there are some older HDTV's that do NOT HAVE digital connectors!  Plus what about those adapter boxes so that old TV's can still pickup OTA tv stations?  If analog is blocked, then ALL those TV's will not work, because they have no digital connectors!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a HUGE FLAW with this... If they can choose to disable analog connections... Then most Cable TV users will be screwed ! When I got 3 HD Cable Boxes , They did not connect them to my TV via HDMI , they connected them via 5 RCA Cables !
( 3 for video , and 2 for audio ) When I asked them , they said that these cables were cheaper than the HDMI ones ( Which is BS I order HDMI cables off Amazon.com for $ 8 each ) , and that it worked with all TV 's.So if the MPAA get their way , then when the analog ports are turned off , MOST cable users will see NOTHING ! Plus there are some older HDTV 's that do NOT HAVE digital connectors !
Plus what about those adapter boxes so that old TV 's can still pickup OTA tv stations ?
If analog is blocked , then ALL those TV 's will not work , because they have no digital connectors !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a HUGE FLAW with this...  If they can choose to disable analog connections...  Then most Cable TV users will be screwed!When I got 3 HD Cable Boxes, They did not connect them to my TV via HDMI, they connected them via 5 RCA Cables!
(3 for video, and 2 for audio)  When I asked them, they said that these cables were cheaper than the HDMI ones (Which is BS I order HDMI cables off Amazon.com for $8 each), and that it worked with all TV's.So if the MPAA get their way, then when the analog ports are turned off, MOST cable users will see NOTHING!Plus there are some older HDTV's that do NOT HAVE digital connectors!
Plus what about those adapter boxes so that old TV's can still pickup OTA tv stations?
If analog is blocked, then ALL those TV's will not work, because they have no digital connectors!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072</id>
	<title>Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1258047540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would any sane person consent to having their TV outputs shut off just so they could watch a movie a few weeks before the DVD release?  I didn't think so.</p><p>Also, HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...it's not like they're preventing piracy.  I don't understand this obsession with "the analog hole."  You're only going to hurt Mom &amp; Pop who are still connecting their cable box on channel 3 with the RF connector.  Everyone else is using HDMI anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would any sane person consent to having their TV outputs shut off just so they could watch a movie a few weeks before the DVD release ?
I did n't think so.Also , HDMI 's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...it 's not like they 're preventing piracy .
I do n't understand this obsession with " the analog hole .
" You 're only going to hurt Mom &amp; Pop who are still connecting their cable box on channel 3 with the RF connector .
Everyone else is using HDMI anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would any sane person consent to having their TV outputs shut off just so they could watch a movie a few weeks before the DVD release?
I didn't think so.Also, HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...it's not like they're preventing piracy.
I don't understand this obsession with "the analog hole.
"  You're only going to hurt Mom &amp; Pop who are still connecting their cable box on channel 3 with the RF connector.
Everyone else is using HDMI anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30082946</id>
	<title>Failed Logic</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1258041780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.</p></div><p>Excuse me?  I fail to see the logic in that statement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers.Excuse me ?
I fail to see the logic in that statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.Excuse me?
I fail to see the logic in that statement.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074376</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258048500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why potentially cripple all of the television appliances just to allow a minority of people to watch movies a few days earlier?  Once such a remote disable ability exists, it will be used and abused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why potentially cripple all of the television appliances just to allow a minority of people to watch movies a few days earlier ?
Once such a remote disable ability exists , it will be used and abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why potentially cripple all of the television appliances just to allow a minority of people to watch movies a few days earlier?
Once such a remote disable ability exists, it will be used and abused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075866</id>
	<title>Re:What's the point?</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1258052880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Hauppage HD-PVR has been around a long while now, sure it only does component, but so do many older TVs. Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 can't fix.</p></div></blockquote><p>The HDFury2 can have its HDCP key revoked.  What then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Hauppage HD-PVR has been around a long while now , sure it only does component , but so do many older TVs .
Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 ca n't fix.The HDFury2 can have its HDCP key revoked .
What then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Hauppage HD-PVR has been around a long while now, sure it only does component, but so do many older TVs.
Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 can't fix.The HDFury2 can have its HDCP key revoked.
What then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077946</id>
	<title>You cannot stop piracy completely</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1258016700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no matter what you do. The best way to limit piracy is to make original content cheap enough that piracy is not worth it. Make DVD's $2-3, and blu-ray disc $9-10. A blank DVD cost ~$0.50. A blank Blu-ray $7.50 (newegg).  Avatar apparently costs $300 million. So if every person in the US paid $1, the movie would break even. Obviously not everyone in the US will buy every movie, but the rest of the world should be able to fill in the gaps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no matter what you do .
The best way to limit piracy is to make original content cheap enough that piracy is not worth it .
Make DVD 's $ 2-3 , and blu-ray disc $ 9-10 .
A blank DVD cost ~ $ 0.50 .
A blank Blu-ray $ 7.50 ( newegg ) .
Avatar apparently costs $ 300 million .
So if every person in the US paid $ 1 , the movie would break even .
Obviously not everyone in the US will buy every movie , but the rest of the world should be able to fill in the gaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no matter what you do.
The best way to limit piracy is to make original content cheap enough that piracy is not worth it.
Make DVD's $2-3, and blu-ray disc $9-10.
A blank DVD cost ~$0.50.
A blank Blu-ray $7.50 (newegg).
Avatar apparently costs $300 million.
So if every person in the US paid $1, the movie would break even.
Obviously not everyone in the US will buy every movie, but the rest of the world should be able to fill in the gaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079828</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>you, sir, get 'I know what that's from' props</htmltext>
<tokenext>you , sir , get 'I know what that 's from ' props</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you, sir, get 'I know what that's from' props</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077876</id>
	<title>Idiotic argument.</title>
	<author>ZarathustraDK</author>
	<datestamp>1258016400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.</p></div><p>If I install a zipper in my asshole, that does NOT make me capable of shitting more!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers.If I install a zipper in my asshole , that does NOT make me capable of shitting more !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.If I install a zipper in my asshole, that does NOT make me capable of shitting more!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074136</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do they care about the analog hole still?<br>Because of all those TV Shows that end up on torrent sites the day they are being aired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do they care about the analog hole still ? Because of all those TV Shows that end up on torrent sites the day they are being aired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do they care about the analog hole still?Because of all those TV Shows that end up on torrent sites the day they are being aired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076020</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258053360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Digital implants in our optic nerves to prevent us from seeing contents for which we haven't paid?</p></div><p>$&gt; export AWAY\_MSG = "Quick trip to USPTO...."</p><p>ps: we need to make a prior-art statement using something at-present feasible (ie fMRI) to do this. Yes, scientifically it is tenuous at best - but that's beside the point.<br>pps: anyway, when this comes to pass big brother won't need to watch you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital implants in our optic nerves to prevent us from seeing contents for which we have n't paid ? $ &gt; export AWAY \ _MSG = " Quick trip to USPTO.... " ps : we need to make a prior-art statement using something at-present feasible ( ie fMRI ) to do this .
Yes , scientifically it is tenuous at best - but that 's beside the point.pps : anyway , when this comes to pass big brother wo n't need to watch you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Digital implants in our optic nerves to prevent us from seeing contents for which we haven't paid?$&gt; export AWAY\_MSG = "Quick trip to USPTO...."ps: we need to make a prior-art statement using something at-present feasible (ie fMRI) to do this.
Yes, scientifically it is tenuous at best - but that's beside the point.pps: anyway, when this comes to pass big brother won't need to watch you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074122</id>
	<title>The work around is almost perfect.</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1258047660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sense a great deal of modern television sets are practicly embeded computers, this move will hopefully be the push to launch homebrew TV bios.</p><p>I would love to flash a HTC to enable cool video overlays or to allow simultaneous stream dumping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sense a great deal of modern television sets are practicly embeded computers , this move will hopefully be the push to launch homebrew TV bios.I would love to flash a HTC to enable cool video overlays or to allow simultaneous stream dumping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sense a great deal of modern television sets are practicly embeded computers, this move will hopefully be the push to launch homebrew TV bios.I would love to flash a HTC to enable cool video overlays or to allow simultaneous stream dumping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074542</id>
	<title>Just to ask . . .</title>
	<author>mmell</author>
	<datestamp>1258049160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that Blu-Ray/DVD/MP4 streams can <i>all</i> be ripped digitally without resorting to analog (with all the quality degradation that brings) - and given that somebody with sufficient skill and equipment to use the analog hole probably also has the skills and equipment to rip digital video without resorting to analog techniques - who cares?<p>
Besides, if Hollyweird's streamed content breaks my TV, I'll just (A) Sue, (B) Vote with my wallet, and (C) Sue.  Even if (A) and (C) are eliminated from the list, I'm pretty sure a <i>lot</i> of the cash-spending public will employ option (B).</p><p>
Which reminds me - do they <i>really</i> have anything to offer which makes this kind of tradeoff worth it?  I'll admit that occasionally something really worthwhile comes out of Tinseltown, but not that often IMHO; and even then I think I'll be okay waiting a few extra weeks and buying physical media rather than letting some nameless, faceless entity screw with the firmware in my home electronics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that Blu-Ray/DVD/MP4 streams can all be ripped digitally without resorting to analog ( with all the quality degradation that brings ) - and given that somebody with sufficient skill and equipment to use the analog hole probably also has the skills and equipment to rip digital video without resorting to analog techniques - who cares ?
Besides , if Hollyweird 's streamed content breaks my TV , I 'll just ( A ) Sue , ( B ) Vote with my wallet , and ( C ) Sue .
Even if ( A ) and ( C ) are eliminated from the list , I 'm pretty sure a lot of the cash-spending public will employ option ( B ) .
Which reminds me - do they really have anything to offer which makes this kind of tradeoff worth it ?
I 'll admit that occasionally something really worthwhile comes out of Tinseltown , but not that often IMHO ; and even then I think I 'll be okay waiting a few extra weeks and buying physical media rather than letting some nameless , faceless entity screw with the firmware in my home electronics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that Blu-Ray/DVD/MP4 streams can all be ripped digitally without resorting to analog (with all the quality degradation that brings) - and given that somebody with sufficient skill and equipment to use the analog hole probably also has the skills and equipment to rip digital video without resorting to analog techniques - who cares?
Besides, if Hollyweird's streamed content breaks my TV, I'll just (A) Sue, (B) Vote with my wallet, and (C) Sue.
Even if (A) and (C) are eliminated from the list, I'm pretty sure a lot of the cash-spending public will employ option (B).
Which reminds me - do they really have anything to offer which makes this kind of tradeoff worth it?
I'll admit that occasionally something really worthwhile comes out of Tinseltown, but not that often IMHO; and even then I think I'll be okay waiting a few extra weeks and buying physical media rather than letting some nameless, faceless entity screw with the firmware in my home electronics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076712</id>
	<title>Thanks, but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258055580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a consumer I can personally say that I don't want it, so keep it to yourself. If I want to rent a movie I will do so using current means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a consumer I can personally say that I do n't want it , so keep it to yourself .
If I want to rent a movie I will do so using current means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a consumer I can personally say that I don't want it, so keep it to yourself.
If I want to rent a movie I will do so using current means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074806</id>
	<title>Re:Cartel</title>
	<author>anglico</author>
	<datestamp>1258049940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I wonder if they like OPEC?</p> </div><p> My guess is one modeled themselves after the other, but that is just my guess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they like OPEC ?
My guess is one modeled themselves after the other , but that is just my guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I wonder if they like OPEC?
My guess is one modeled themselves after the other, but that is just my guess.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074292</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1258048260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say the FCC rolls over and says, "Sure! Plug all the holes you want!" and the SOC becomes reality.  Then what?  Will I be prevented from using a video camera to record the TV screen as it's playing?  Digital implants in our optic nerves to prevent us from seeing contents for which we haven't paid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say the FCC rolls over and says , " Sure !
Plug all the holes you want !
" and the SOC becomes reality .
Then what ?
Will I be prevented from using a video camera to record the TV screen as it 's playing ?
Digital implants in our optic nerves to prevent us from seeing contents for which we have n't paid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say the FCC rolls over and says, "Sure!
Plug all the holes you want!
" and the SOC becomes reality.
Then what?
Will I be prevented from using a video camera to record the TV screen as it's playing?
Digital implants in our optic nerves to prevent us from seeing contents for which we haven't paid?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077102</id>
	<title>Just enable Macrovision on the analog outs.</title>
	<author>gmarsh</author>
	<datestamp>1258056960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody would be able to record anything off the analog outputs with this incredible, high-tech, unbreakable copy-protection technology... wouldn't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody would be able to record anything off the analog outputs with this incredible , high-tech , unbreakable copy-protection technology... would n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody would be able to record anything off the analog outputs with this incredible, high-tech, unbreakable copy-protection technology... wouldn't they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074712</id>
	<title>Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>F.Ultra</author>
	<datestamp>1258049640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>HDMI is not encrypted to protect the content, it's there so that Intel can charge license fees of display manufacturerers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI is not encrypted to protect the content , it 's there so that Intel can charge license fees of display manufacturerers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI is not encrypted to protect the content, it's there so that Intel can charge license fees of display manufacturerers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074668</id>
	<title>Re:Every time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258049520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm trying to figure out how the logical leap is made here: "If we can keep them from getting anything, we can give them more."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fucking what? Did their spokesasshole just say that with a straight face?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trying to figure out how the logical leap is made here : " If we can keep them from getting anything , we can give them more .
" ... fucking what ?
Did their spokesasshole just say that with a straight face ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trying to figure out how the logical leap is made here: "If we can keep them from getting anything, we can give them more.
" ... fucking what?
Did their spokesasshole just say that with a straight face?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30089660</id>
	<title>"We want to deliver more goods..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure they want to block analog ports to keep us from tying them to a VCR, DVD recorder, etc so they can control if we can record what they send?</p><p>So, how are the federal anti-trust suits coming against MPAA?  Oh wait!  They have their hands in the politician's pockets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure they want to block analog ports to keep us from tying them to a VCR , DVD recorder , etc so they can control if we can record what they send ? So , how are the federal anti-trust suits coming against MPAA ?
Oh wait !
They have their hands in the politician 's pockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure they want to block analog ports to keep us from tying them to a VCR, DVD recorder, etc so they can control if we can record what they send?So, how are the federal anti-trust suits coming against MPAA?
Oh wait!
They have their hands in the politician's pockets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074256</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Thansal</author>
	<datestamp>1258048140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until they ONLY make releases for those types of sets.<br>&lt;/paranoia&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until they ONLY make releases for those types of sets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until they ONLY make releases for those types of sets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076076</id>
	<title>We need to fight back harder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258053540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of just defending against each of their attacks, each attack ought to invite a counter-attack.  They try to legalize some new bullshit, we should stop it and also outlaw some old bullshit (e.g. repeal DMCA) each time.  Every time they ask for something, they ought to not get it <em>and</em> also lose something.</p><p>Continuous battle is wearisome.  Let's discourage their aggression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of just defending against each of their attacks , each attack ought to invite a counter-attack .
They try to legalize some new bullshit , we should stop it and also outlaw some old bullshit ( e.g .
repeal DMCA ) each time .
Every time they ask for something , they ought to not get it and also lose something.Continuous battle is wearisome .
Let 's discourage their aggression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of just defending against each of their attacks, each attack ought to invite a counter-attack.
They try to legalize some new bullshit, we should stop it and also outlaw some old bullshit (e.g.
repeal DMCA) each time.
Every time they ask for something, they ought to not get it and also lose something.Continuous battle is wearisome.
Let's discourage their aggression.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074588</id>
	<title>imagination land</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1258049340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It takes a whole lot of disillusioned out of touch dinosaurs to come up with a system where removing a functionality would make it so " they could offer more goods to consumers."
</p><p>
Are they so deeply entrenched in their own lies and have completely lost touch with common sense that they actually believe what they are saying? It's either that, or they're knowingly trying to screw everyone (again).
</p><p>
The idiots in RIAA,MPAA (or whatever bullshit organization centered around imaginary property) should have NO say in non-imaginary property.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes a whole lot of disillusioned out of touch dinosaurs to come up with a system where removing a functionality would make it so " they could offer more goods to consumers .
" Are they so deeply entrenched in their own lies and have completely lost touch with common sense that they actually believe what they are saying ?
It 's either that , or they 're knowingly trying to screw everyone ( again ) .
The idiots in RIAA,MPAA ( or whatever bullshit organization centered around imaginary property ) should have NO say in non-imaginary property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It takes a whole lot of disillusioned out of touch dinosaurs to come up with a system where removing a functionality would make it so " they could offer more goods to consumers.
"

Are they so deeply entrenched in their own lies and have completely lost touch with common sense that they actually believe what they are saying?
It's either that, or they're knowingly trying to screw everyone (again).
The idiots in RIAA,MPAA (or whatever bullshit organization centered around imaginary property) should have NO say in non-imaginary property.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077360</id>
	<title>Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1258057740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Media Wars, Chapter IV: A New Hope (with Napster)<br>
Media Wars, Chapter V: The Media Empire Strikes Back<br>
Media Wars, Chapter VI: The Media Empire Strikes Back Again<br>
Media Wars, Chapter VII: The Search For More Money<br>
Media Wars, Chapter VIII: Fuck It! Let's Just Drop Ewoks on Them!<br>
[...time passes...]<br>
Media Wars, Chapter I: The Phantom Lawsuit<br>
Media Wars, Chapter II: The Clone Lawsuits<br>
Media Wars, Chapter III: Revenge of the Glickman<br>
Gigli 2: Just Because We Hate You</htmltext>
<tokenext>Media Wars , Chapter IV : A New Hope ( with Napster ) Media Wars , Chapter V : The Media Empire Strikes Back Media Wars , Chapter VI : The Media Empire Strikes Back Again Media Wars , Chapter VII : The Search For More Money Media Wars , Chapter VIII : Fuck It !
Let 's Just Drop Ewoks on Them !
[ ...time passes... ] Media Wars , Chapter I : The Phantom Lawsuit Media Wars , Chapter II : The Clone Lawsuits Media Wars , Chapter III : Revenge of the Glickman Gigli 2 : Just Because We Hate You</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Media Wars, Chapter IV: A New Hope (with Napster)
Media Wars, Chapter V: The Media Empire Strikes Back
Media Wars, Chapter VI: The Media Empire Strikes Back Again
Media Wars, Chapter VII: The Search For More Money
Media Wars, Chapter VIII: Fuck It!
Let's Just Drop Ewoks on Them!
[...time passes...]
Media Wars, Chapter I: The Phantom Lawsuit
Media Wars, Chapter II: The Clone Lawsuits
Media Wars, Chapter III: Revenge of the Glickman
Gigli 2: Just Because We Hate You</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073940</id>
	<title>Pirates</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1258046940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.</p></div><p>While I usually just laught at pirates stupid reasonings to pirate content (stupid record labels, support the artists directly, blabla), this is even more fun.</p><p>"Do what we demand, or suffer."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers.While I usually just laught at pirates stupid reasonings to pirate content ( stupid record labels , support the artists directly , blabla ) , this is even more fun .
" Do what we demand , or suffer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.While I usually just laught at pirates stupid reasonings to pirate content (stupid record labels, support the artists directly, blabla), this is even more fun.
"Do what we demand, or suffer.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30078452</id>
	<title>you all missed the point</title>
	<author>Karnje</author>
	<datestamp>1258018680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow I really can believe I didn't find any comments as to the real reason whey they want to do this. Has anyone ever considered what would happen if this were passed? First and foremost it would make the physical RCA component jack completely obsolete. There would be no reason to have the physical port there if no media supported it. This would push device manufacturers to remove it from all new devices. Now you may think oh well its like 2 cents added to the cost of the device, but look at it from the perspective the total number of these produced in a year for all the different devices out there. Some company is going to lose a significant portion of their profits(you have to figure that the R&amp;D of this component was paid for years ago so by now whoever is producing them is make big profits) and many companies are going to save a significant portion on costs. As far as I am concerned the MPAA doesn't even factor into this equation. This is a cost driven ploy on the part of different corporations an investors they are just using the MPAA as their muscle. Case in point I know that X company produces this composite jack. I know that the FCC may regulate this. I buy long short(really cheap) in that company and wait for the media. I guess the point I am really trying to make is that even though the consumer and the MPAA appear to be the major players here, I just don't see the economics adding up to that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow I really can believe I did n't find any comments as to the real reason whey they want to do this .
Has anyone ever considered what would happen if this were passed ?
First and foremost it would make the physical RCA component jack completely obsolete .
There would be no reason to have the physical port there if no media supported it .
This would push device manufacturers to remove it from all new devices .
Now you may think oh well its like 2 cents added to the cost of the device , but look at it from the perspective the total number of these produced in a year for all the different devices out there .
Some company is going to lose a significant portion of their profits ( you have to figure that the R&amp;D of this component was paid for years ago so by now whoever is producing them is make big profits ) and many companies are going to save a significant portion on costs .
As far as I am concerned the MPAA does n't even factor into this equation .
This is a cost driven ploy on the part of different corporations an investors they are just using the MPAA as their muscle .
Case in point I know that X company produces this composite jack .
I know that the FCC may regulate this .
I buy long short ( really cheap ) in that company and wait for the media .
I guess the point I am really trying to make is that even though the consumer and the MPAA appear to be the major players here , I just do n't see the economics adding up to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow I really can believe I didn't find any comments as to the real reason whey they want to do this.
Has anyone ever considered what would happen if this were passed?
First and foremost it would make the physical RCA component jack completely obsolete.
There would be no reason to have the physical port there if no media supported it.
This would push device manufacturers to remove it from all new devices.
Now you may think oh well its like 2 cents added to the cost of the device, but look at it from the perspective the total number of these produced in a year for all the different devices out there.
Some company is going to lose a significant portion of their profits(you have to figure that the R&amp;D of this component was paid for years ago so by now whoever is producing them is make big profits) and many companies are going to save a significant portion on costs.
As far as I am concerned the MPAA doesn't even factor into this equation.
This is a cost driven ploy on the part of different corporations an investors they are just using the MPAA as their muscle.
Case in point I know that X company produces this composite jack.
I know that the FCC may regulate this.
I buy long short(really cheap) in that company and wait for the media.
I guess the point I am really trying to make is that even though the consumer and the MPAA appear to be the major players here, I just don't see the economics adding up to that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075204</id>
	<title>Re:Much Ado About MPAA</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1258050960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally I would agree with you but...
</p><p>You give one very power group of asshats a ridiculous amount of power over your stuff then it's only a matter of time before they use that power to squash any competition.
</p><p>Bear with me on this logic. If the MPAA gets another inch of digital control over our stuff, it will be only a matter of time before they take mile (give a cm, take a km for my non-US friends).
</p><p>The paranoid side of me sees a not too distant future where in order to play any media using a "new and improved" media player will require an encryption key that tells the player that it's safe to play. Afterwards, independent studios will need to license the right to distribute media to these players (ie. join the MPAA) in order to exist.
</p><p>The MPAA already is gaining uncomfortable control in the player/recorder market. Case in point - MythTV can't record premium channels. It's already bad enough that I can not use a third-party DVR to record my premium channels from my cable box using the firewire connection. Ironically that firewire connection was mandated by the FCC to ensure that I wouldn't be forced to use the cable company's DVR. What is the point if the FCC doesn't force the connection to be usable?
</p><p> <b>In the end, the piracy complaints from the MPAA will turn out to be an elaborate ruse to protect their media cartel.</b>
</p><p>My point being that we are not fighting to make piracy easier, we are fighting for the right to lawfully use the equipment we now own. Piracy is a separate issue altogether.
</p><p>The FCC should do its job and insure that all media broadcasts (open air and cable) can be viewed and recorded with the equipment that are currently available using the industry standard plugs (analog and digital). Leave the piracy fight to the FBI, FTC, and the civil courts where it belongs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally I would agree with you but.. . You give one very power group of asshats a ridiculous amount of power over your stuff then it 's only a matter of time before they use that power to squash any competition .
Bear with me on this logic .
If the MPAA gets another inch of digital control over our stuff , it will be only a matter of time before they take mile ( give a cm , take a km for my non-US friends ) .
The paranoid side of me sees a not too distant future where in order to play any media using a " new and improved " media player will require an encryption key that tells the player that it 's safe to play .
Afterwards , independent studios will need to license the right to distribute media to these players ( ie .
join the MPAA ) in order to exist .
The MPAA already is gaining uncomfortable control in the player/recorder market .
Case in point - MythTV ca n't record premium channels .
It 's already bad enough that I can not use a third-party DVR to record my premium channels from my cable box using the firewire connection .
Ironically that firewire connection was mandated by the FCC to ensure that I would n't be forced to use the cable company 's DVR .
What is the point if the FCC does n't force the connection to be usable ?
In the end , the piracy complaints from the MPAA will turn out to be an elaborate ruse to protect their media cartel .
My point being that we are not fighting to make piracy easier , we are fighting for the right to lawfully use the equipment we now own .
Piracy is a separate issue altogether .
The FCC should do its job and insure that all media broadcasts ( open air and cable ) can be viewed and recorded with the equipment that are currently available using the industry standard plugs ( analog and digital ) .
Leave the piracy fight to the FBI , FTC , and the civil courts where it belongs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally I would agree with you but...
You give one very power group of asshats a ridiculous amount of power over your stuff then it's only a matter of time before they use that power to squash any competition.
Bear with me on this logic.
If the MPAA gets another inch of digital control over our stuff, it will be only a matter of time before they take mile (give a cm, take a km for my non-US friends).
The paranoid side of me sees a not too distant future where in order to play any media using a "new and improved" media player will require an encryption key that tells the player that it's safe to play.
Afterwards, independent studios will need to license the right to distribute media to these players (ie.
join the MPAA) in order to exist.
The MPAA already is gaining uncomfortable control in the player/recorder market.
Case in point - MythTV can't record premium channels.
It's already bad enough that I can not use a third-party DVR to record my premium channels from my cable box using the firewire connection.
Ironically that firewire connection was mandated by the FCC to ensure that I wouldn't be forced to use the cable company's DVR.
What is the point if the FCC doesn't force the connection to be usable?
In the end, the piracy complaints from the MPAA will turn out to be an elaborate ruse to protect their media cartel.
My point being that we are not fighting to make piracy easier, we are fighting for the right to lawfully use the equipment we now own.
Piracy is a separate issue altogether.
The FCC should do its job and insure that all media broadcasts (open air and cable) can be viewed and recorded with the equipment that are currently available using the industry standard plugs (analog and digital).
Leave the piracy fight to the FBI, FTC, and the civil courts where it belongs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008</id>
	<title>Cartel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When is the MPAA and RIAA going to be broken up as a cartel? They all price match each other, control pricing, and even sue as a group.</p><p>It's a perfect cartel. I wonder if they like OPEC? Probably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When is the MPAA and RIAA going to be broken up as a cartel ?
They all price match each other , control pricing , and even sue as a group.It 's a perfect cartel .
I wonder if they like OPEC ?
Probably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When is the MPAA and RIAA going to be broken up as a cartel?
They all price match each other, control pricing, and even sue as a group.It's a perfect cartel.
I wonder if they like OPEC?
Probably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074500</id>
	<title>Re:Much Ado About MPAA</title>
	<author>oh-dark-thirty</author>
	<datestamp>1258048920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me and my lady do make our own movies...oh, wait, maybe that's not what you meant...

I buy very little 'content', since most of it isn't worth the bits it's made from.  I don't even pirate, so I have effectively done what you suggest.  Joe the Plumber doesn't have a clue about all this digitial rights management hoopla, he just wants his TV to turn on and display stuff, and maybe DVR a little on the side.  This is why the *AA's of the world have been getting more or less what they want; an uneducated public is their best friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me and my lady do make our own movies...oh , wait , maybe that 's not what you meant.. . I buy very little 'content ' , since most of it is n't worth the bits it 's made from .
I do n't even pirate , so I have effectively done what you suggest .
Joe the Plumber does n't have a clue about all this digitial rights management hoopla , he just wants his TV to turn on and display stuff , and maybe DVR a little on the side .
This is why the * AA 's of the world have been getting more or less what they want ; an uneducated public is their best friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me and my lady do make our own movies...oh, wait, maybe that's not what you meant...

I buy very little 'content', since most of it isn't worth the bits it's made from.
I don't even pirate, so I have effectively done what you suggest.
Joe the Plumber doesn't have a clue about all this digitial rights management hoopla, he just wants his TV to turn on and display stuff, and maybe DVR a little on the side.
This is why the *AA's of the world have been getting more or less what they want; an uneducated public is their best friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074980</id>
	<title>Re:Cartel</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1258050240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They all price match each other</i></p><p>Maybe they do, maybe they don't, when you have monopolistic pricing you set prices for revenue maximization as a function of consumer disposable income. As it's not a competitive function they'll likely end up with roughly the same pricing with or without collusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They all price match each otherMaybe they do , maybe they do n't , when you have monopolistic pricing you set prices for revenue maximization as a function of consumer disposable income .
As it 's not a competitive function they 'll likely end up with roughly the same pricing with or without collusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They all price match each otherMaybe they do, maybe they don't, when you have monopolistic pricing you set prices for revenue maximization as a function of consumer disposable income.
As it's not a competitive function they'll likely end up with roughly the same pricing with or without collusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074846</id>
	<title>Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258050000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The analog hole is not that it is easier to copy analog data, but that it is legal to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analog hole is not that it is easier to copy analog data , but that it is legal to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analog hole is not that it is easier to copy analog data, but that it is legal to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075982</id>
	<title>Digital TV</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258053240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now you see what the push was all about to move towards all digital tv<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. gotta upgrade and get all these great DRM features in the hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you see what the push was all about to move towards all digital tv .. got ta upgrade and get all these great DRM features in the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you see what the push was all about to move towards all digital tv .. gotta upgrade and get all these great DRM features in the hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077074</id>
	<title>Antique HDTVs?</title>
	<author>IgePanda</author>
	<datestamp>1258056780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers</p></div><p>In other words, the MPAA wants to assure that early adopters of HDTV,  who only have analog inputs, are required to shell out at least a grand to replace their antique highdef set even though they are perfectly happy with the component cable box combo.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumersIn other words , the MPAA wants to assure that early adopters of HDTV , who only have analog inputs , are required to shell out at least a grand to replace their antique highdef set even though they are perfectly happy with the component cable box combo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumersIn other words, the MPAA wants to assure that early adopters of HDTV,  who only have analog inputs, are required to shell out at least a grand to replace their antique highdef set even though they are perfectly happy with the component cable box combo.  
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074198</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1258047960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess what else they want control over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what else they want control over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what else they want control over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074274</id>
	<title>Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1258048200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Would any sane person consent to..."<br> <br>

When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies?  Did you consent to only be able to play DVDs on special MPAA approved devices?  These are forced upon the public by organizations that get propped up by the government with DMCA type laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Would any sane person consent to... " When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies ?
Did you consent to only be able to play DVDs on special MPAA approved devices ?
These are forced upon the public by organizations that get propped up by the government with DMCA type laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Would any sane person consent to..." 

When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies?
Did you consent to only be able to play DVDs on special MPAA approved devices?
These are forced upon the public by organizations that get propped up by the government with DMCA type laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074672</id>
	<title>Idea</title>
	<author>fatalwall</author>
	<datestamp>1258049520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might be stupid but why doesnt the MPAA just have a special device created for viewing ealry released content. Like a tv with a built in computer that would connect securely across the internet to a streaming source.</p><p>This way they get around the fcc and they can fallow the iphone as being an expensive device that they user paid for but doesnt "own"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be stupid but why doesnt the MPAA just have a special device created for viewing ealry released content .
Like a tv with a built in computer that would connect securely across the internet to a streaming source.This way they get around the fcc and they can fallow the iphone as being an expensive device that they user paid for but doesnt " own "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be stupid but why doesnt the MPAA just have a special device created for viewing ealry released content.
Like a tv with a built in computer that would connect securely across the internet to a streaming source.This way they get around the fcc and they can fallow the iphone as being an expensive device that they user paid for but doesnt "own"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30109102</id>
	<title>Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258281240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They're trying to tighten control over products they *don't* sell!</i> </p><p>Exactly.</p><p>"This movie is "licensed" to the viewer for one eye only. For use with both eyes, click the button to upgrade for us with binocular vision.</p><p>Also, click the button if you are dead drunk and seeing double with just one eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're trying to tighten control over products they * do n't * sell !
Exactly. " This movie is " licensed " to the viewer for one eye only .
For use with both eyes , click the button to upgrade for us with binocular vision.Also , click the button if you are dead drunk and seeing double with just one eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're trying to tighten control over products they *don't* sell!
Exactly."This movie is "licensed" to the viewer for one eye only.
For use with both eyes, click the button to upgrade for us with binocular vision.Also, click the button if you are dead drunk and seeing double with just one eye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074750</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1258049700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, that assumes that the purpose here is to stop piracy.  The MPAA gains another thing from all their various kinds of DRM: it means that consumers are often forced to re-buy the same content over and over for various devices and uses.  You know, like you buy the Bluray and... what?  You want to play the movie on your iPod?  Buy the special iPod version.  Oh, you want to be able to play it on your netbook?  You have to buy a separate version for that.
</p><p>And then they complain that consumers aren't buying enough movies.  It must be because of piracy, and certainly not because we're selling a crippled and confusing product.  Therefore, the government has to find additional ways to bail them out.
</p><p>It's not a crazy plan if it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , that assumes that the purpose here is to stop piracy .
The MPAA gains another thing from all their various kinds of DRM : it means that consumers are often forced to re-buy the same content over and over for various devices and uses .
You know , like you buy the Bluray and... what ? You want to play the movie on your iPod ?
Buy the special iPod version .
Oh , you want to be able to play it on your netbook ?
You have to buy a separate version for that .
And then they complain that consumers are n't buying enough movies .
It must be because of piracy , and certainly not because we 're selling a crippled and confusing product .
Therefore , the government has to find additional ways to bail them out .
It 's not a crazy plan if it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, that assumes that the purpose here is to stop piracy.
The MPAA gains another thing from all their various kinds of DRM: it means that consumers are often forced to re-buy the same content over and over for various devices and uses.
You know, like you buy the Bluray and... what?  You want to play the movie on your iPod?
Buy the special iPod version.
Oh, you want to be able to play it on your netbook?
You have to buy a separate version for that.
And then they complain that consumers aren't buying enough movies.
It must be because of piracy, and certainly not because we're selling a crippled and confusing product.
Therefore, the government has to find additional ways to bail them out.
It's not a crazy plan if it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074788</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258049880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Excellent point.  Remember when lower quality VHS beat out higher quality Beta?  Did consumers care?  No.  They went with what was either convenient or available.  </p><p>Sony's inability to see the impact market forces on their closed architecture, notwithstanding, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently does n't really work .
Excellent point .
Remember when lower quality VHS beat out higher quality Beta ?
Did consumers care ?
No. They went with what was either convenient or available .
Sony 's inability to see the impact market forces on their closed architecture , notwithstanding , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work.
Excellent point.
Remember when lower quality VHS beat out higher quality Beta?
Did consumers care?
No.  They went with what was either convenient or available.
Sony's inability to see the impact market forces on their closed architecture, notwithstanding, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30078656</id>
	<title>So what you're really trying tro do...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258019400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..is stop me from playing my Xbox using PiP while your MPAA protected movie plays on the main screen, or from watching Sunday Night Football while the wife watches some "chick flick".</p><p>Finally, a reason to go use the TV in the other room!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..is stop me from playing my Xbox using PiP while your MPAA protected movie plays on the main screen , or from watching Sunday Night Football while the wife watches some " chick flick " .Finally , a reason to go use the TV in the other room ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..is stop me from playing my Xbox using PiP while your MPAA protected movie plays on the main screen, or from watching Sunday Night Football while the wife watches some "chick flick".Finally, a reason to go use the TV in the other room!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074284</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>davek</author>
	<datestamp>1258048200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shouldn't this be a decision that consumers make? I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier..  if not, then we get normal release times.</p></div><p>What a perfectly reasonable solution!  However, you're falsely assuming that the MPAA or the FCC have any care whatsoever about the consumer.  Its never been about the consumer, its about controlling and maintaining the status quo and the lifestyles of Hollywood royalty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't this be a decision that consumers make ?
I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier.. if not , then we get normal release times.What a perfectly reasonable solution !
However , you 're falsely assuming that the MPAA or the FCC have any care whatsoever about the consumer .
Its never been about the consumer , its about controlling and maintaining the status quo and the lifestyles of Hollywood royalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't this be a decision that consumers make?
I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier..  if not, then we get normal release times.What a perfectly reasonable solution!
However, you're falsely assuming that the MPAA or the FCC have any care whatsoever about the consumer.
Its never been about the consumer, its about controlling and maintaining the status quo and the lifestyles of Hollywood royalty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076136</id>
	<title>TV "Hood" Analog Hole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258053720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I kid you not, if they turn off analog component video I GAURANTEE you that somebody will engineer something that fits over the front of 1080p display and acurately captures every last bit. You may not be able to buy it for your home, but stuff will continue to get onto the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I kid you not , if they turn off analog component video I GAURANTEE you that somebody will engineer something that fits over the front of 1080p display and acurately captures every last bit .
You may not be able to buy it for your home , but stuff will continue to get onto the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kid you not, if they turn off analog component video I GAURANTEE you that somebody will engineer something that fits over the front of 1080p display and acurately captures every last bit.
You may not be able to buy it for your home, but stuff will continue to get onto the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074200</id>
	<title>The old fashioned way</title>
	<author>Wardish</author>
	<datestamp>1258048020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the mpaa want's people to use TV's (or other devices) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them.   If the market wants them then tally-ho.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the mpaa want 's people to use TV 's ( or other devices ) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them .
If the market wants them then tally-ho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the mpaa want's people to use TV's (or other devices) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them.
If the market wants them then tally-ho.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30078980</id>
	<title>Dear MPAA,</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1258020660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear MPAA,</p><p>Fuck Off. (Seriously).</p><p>Warmly,</p><p>Everyone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear MPAA,Fuck Off .
( Seriously ) .Warmly,Everyone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear MPAA,Fuck Off.
(Seriously).Warmly,Everyone</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30108332</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258276200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."</i> </p><p>Correspondingly, if your aunt had balls, she could be your uncle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
" Correspondingly , if your aunt had balls , she could be your uncle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
" Correspondingly, if your aunt had balls, she could be your uncle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30085600</id>
	<title>Say what, now?</title>
	<author>fudgefactor7</author>
	<datestamp>1258120500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is their argument even valid? You reduce the native functionality of an item or service and thereby claim to have enhanced the featureset? WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is their argument even valid ?
You reduce the native functionality of an item or service and thereby claim to have enhanced the featureset ?
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is their argument even valid?
You reduce the native functionality of an item or service and thereby claim to have enhanced the featureset?
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30078014</id>
	<title>Just another reason to disconnect</title>
	<author>Roogna</author>
	<datestamp>1258016880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently we disconnected our cable (Well, satellite but same diff).  We simply realized that no one in the house was watching it, oh we turned it on in the background all the time.  But there was a grand total of 3 shows we actually -watched-, and those we were dvr'ing and watching at different times, so we realized we could just grab them on hulu if we really even cared.</p><p>I do have a Mac Mini plugged into our tv with Plex installed.  Which has actually led to us finding some very cool things that we'd never see on regular TV anyway, so no loss to any but the MPAA really.  We've stopped going to theaters for movies because the theaters these days just suck, even if you could find a movie that -was- good.  The viewing entertainment experience the MPAA tries to push would pretty much make you think they just don't want customers at all anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently we disconnected our cable ( Well , satellite but same diff ) .
We simply realized that no one in the house was watching it , oh we turned it on in the background all the time .
But there was a grand total of 3 shows we actually -watched- , and those we were dvr'ing and watching at different times , so we realized we could just grab them on hulu if we really even cared.I do have a Mac Mini plugged into our tv with Plex installed .
Which has actually led to us finding some very cool things that we 'd never see on regular TV anyway , so no loss to any but the MPAA really .
We 've stopped going to theaters for movies because the theaters these days just suck , even if you could find a movie that -was- good .
The viewing entertainment experience the MPAA tries to push would pretty much make you think they just do n't want customers at all anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently we disconnected our cable (Well, satellite but same diff).
We simply realized that no one in the house was watching it, oh we turned it on in the background all the time.
But there was a grand total of 3 shows we actually -watched-, and those we were dvr'ing and watching at different times, so we realized we could just grab them on hulu if we really even cared.I do have a Mac Mini plugged into our tv with Plex installed.
Which has actually led to us finding some very cool things that we'd never see on regular TV anyway, so no loss to any but the MPAA really.
We've stopped going to theaters for movies because the theaters these days just suck, even if you could find a movie that -was- good.
The viewing entertainment experience the MPAA tries to push would pretty much make you think they just don't want customers at all anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074610</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>ezelkow1</author>
	<datestamp>1258049400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of those copies are not received through any analog holes.  They are pure digital copies ripped from hacked, or in some markets even unhacked, dvr boxes.  There is no need to do analog recordings to get a subpar digital copy to distribute all over the internet when its much quicker, easier, and higher quality to just take the original bistream.  That is why this whole analog hole argument is BS, no real pirated copies are done by recording an analog output, its always a pure digital rip, of course just talking about things that are out on discs or broadcast, not theater copies of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of those copies are not received through any analog holes .
They are pure digital copies ripped from hacked , or in some markets even unhacked , dvr boxes .
There is no need to do analog recordings to get a subpar digital copy to distribute all over the internet when its much quicker , easier , and higher quality to just take the original bistream .
That is why this whole analog hole argument is BS , no real pirated copies are done by recording an analog output , its always a pure digital rip , of course just talking about things that are out on discs or broadcast , not theater copies of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of those copies are not received through any analog holes.
They are pure digital copies ripped from hacked, or in some markets even unhacked, dvr boxes.
There is no need to do analog recordings to get a subpar digital copy to distribute all over the internet when its much quicker, easier, and higher quality to just take the original bistream.
That is why this whole analog hole argument is BS, no real pirated copies are done by recording an analog output, its always a pure digital rip, of course just talking about things that are out on discs or broadcast, not theater copies of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074132</id>
	<title>Story recap video, overview from PK</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1258047720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>@publicknowledge has an excellent 2-part video recap, here<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5t2DYT\_SV8" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5t2DYT\_SV8</a> [youtube.com] and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAeZwvvI7w" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAeZwvvI7w</a> [youtube.com]<br>and an issue section with several articles, <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc" title="publicknowledge.org">http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc</a> [publicknowledge.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>@ publicknowledge has an excellent 2-part video recap , herehttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = q5t2DYT \ _SV8 [ youtube.com ] and http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = IyAeZwvvI7w [ youtube.com ] and an issue section with several articles , http : //www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc [ publicknowledge.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@publicknowledge has an excellent 2-part video recap, herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5t2DYT\_SV8 [youtube.com] and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAeZwvvI7w [youtube.com]and an issue section with several articles, http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc [publicknowledge.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077366</id>
	<title>Digital to Analog converter</title>
	<author>jweller13</author>
	<datestamp>1258057800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if it is possible from a technical standpoint, but if so, I think there would be a market for Digital to Analog converters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if it is possible from a technical standpoint , but if so , I think there would be a market for Digital to Analog converters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if it is possible from a technical standpoint, but if so, I think there would be a market for Digital to Analog converters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074472</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1258048860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies...</p></div><p>If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know.  Even if it means the commercials are embedded, I've got no problem with that.  The ability to download a show NOW to watch LATER (say, someplace where I don't have 'net access) would be awesome.</p><p>For the record, I've done my share of Googling and trying different capture apps that haven't worked as advertised.  Maybe you know something I don't (I'm hoping).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies...If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams ( either via webpage or their desktop app ) , I 'd love to know .
Even if it means the commercials are embedded , I 've got no problem with that .
The ability to download a show NOW to watch LATER ( say , someplace where I do n't have 'net access ) would be awesome.For the record , I 've done my share of Googling and trying different capture apps that have n't worked as advertised .
Maybe you know something I do n't ( I 'm hoping ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies...If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know.
Even if it means the commercials are embedded, I've got no problem with that.
The ability to download a show NOW to watch LATER (say, someplace where I don't have 'net access) would be awesome.For the record, I've done my share of Googling and trying different capture apps that haven't worked as advertised.
Maybe you know something I don't (I'm hoping).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046</id>
	<title>They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1258047420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies than it is to fiddle around with cables to make your own crappy analog copy.  Hell, you can download a digital copy while you're watching the DVD/cable movie that they ostensibly think you're planning to analog rip.

</p><p>I can't think why they'd even care about the analog hole any more, other than that it's a pure power ploy.  They push for something crazy like this, then reluctantly accept a "compromise" position like adding another hojillion dollars to the statutory damages for copyright infringement.

</p><p>Or, and this may be a real possibility, they are simply batshit cuckoo-bananas insane and just can't stop fighting a battle that they lost a decade ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies than it is to fiddle around with cables to make your own crappy analog copy .
Hell , you can download a digital copy while you 're watching the DVD/cable movie that they ostensibly think you 're planning to analog rip .
I ca n't think why they 'd even care about the analog hole any more , other than that it 's a pure power ploy .
They push for something crazy like this , then reluctantly accept a " compromise " position like adding another hojillion dollars to the statutory damages for copyright infringement .
Or , and this may be a real possibility , they are simply batshit cuckoo-bananas insane and just ca n't stop fighting a battle that they lost a decade ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies than it is to fiddle around with cables to make your own crappy analog copy.
Hell, you can download a digital copy while you're watching the DVD/cable movie that they ostensibly think you're planning to analog rip.
I can't think why they'd even care about the analog hole any more, other than that it's a pure power ploy.
They push for something crazy like this, then reluctantly accept a "compromise" position like adding another hojillion dollars to the statutory damages for copyright infringement.
Or, and this may be a real possibility, they are simply batshit cuckoo-bananas insane and just can't stop fighting a battle that they lost a decade ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30081960</id>
	<title>Pirating what content.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258033560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crap movies. Not worth the cost of a blank DVD. Studios are spending billions on CGI and "The return of (insert comic book hero here) Part 7 instead of presenting quality products, just like the record industry has been doing for years, selling an album worth of songs for 15 bucks and only 1 or 2 songs are worth listening too. Redigest the movies from old TV shows and complain when it gets copied for god knows what reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap movies .
Not worth the cost of a blank DVD .
Studios are spending billions on CGI and " The return of ( insert comic book hero here ) Part 7 instead of presenting quality products , just like the record industry has been doing for years , selling an album worth of songs for 15 bucks and only 1 or 2 songs are worth listening too .
Redigest the movies from old TV shows and complain when it gets copied for god knows what reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap movies.
Not worth the cost of a blank DVD.
Studios are spending billions on CGI and "The return of (insert comic book hero here) Part 7 instead of presenting quality products, just like the record industry has been doing for years, selling an album worth of songs for 15 bucks and only 1 or 2 songs are worth listening too.
Redigest the movies from old TV shows and complain when it gets copied for god knows what reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076394</id>
	<title>The real story..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258054560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MPAA wants to extract the most money in all available formats.  First running at the movie theatre --&gt; PPV --&gt; BR/DVD release --&gt; and finally television, BR/DVD bargin bin, online streaming etc..<br>They have to balance the timimg of the various formats to maximize sales in step with the declining rate of interest of the movie.  They would have an easier time setting the triggers for each step but one thing is throwing off the process in the middle of the chain, the DVD/BR rental market.  This is an area where they feel THEY can get more of the money that others are geting.  How can they do this?  Limit or delay sales to the rental companies, try to prevent rentals completely through licensing, or as we see now, move up PPV.  They've tried many ways and tricks in the past and none of them are working very well.  Moving PPV up in the time lines is their next attempt.  They feel moving PPV would only be worth the try if the analog hole is patched.  It is a sad place we live in if the MPAA is able to swing the government and the entire electronics industry all for the purpose of them feeling comfortable moving PPV release dates up one month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MPAA wants to extract the most money in all available formats .
First running at the movie theatre -- &gt; PPV -- &gt; BR/DVD release -- &gt; and finally television , BR/DVD bargin bin , online streaming etc..They have to balance the timimg of the various formats to maximize sales in step with the declining rate of interest of the movie .
They would have an easier time setting the triggers for each step but one thing is throwing off the process in the middle of the chain , the DVD/BR rental market .
This is an area where they feel THEY can get more of the money that others are geting .
How can they do this ?
Limit or delay sales to the rental companies , try to prevent rentals completely through licensing , or as we see now , move up PPV .
They 've tried many ways and tricks in the past and none of them are working very well .
Moving PPV up in the time lines is their next attempt .
They feel moving PPV would only be worth the try if the analog hole is patched .
It is a sad place we live in if the MPAA is able to swing the government and the entire electronics industry all for the purpose of them feeling comfortable moving PPV release dates up one month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MPAA wants to extract the most money in all available formats.
First running at the movie theatre --&gt; PPV --&gt; BR/DVD release --&gt; and finally television, BR/DVD bargin bin, online streaming etc..They have to balance the timimg of the various formats to maximize sales in step with the declining rate of interest of the movie.
They would have an easier time setting the triggers for each step but one thing is throwing off the process in the middle of the chain, the DVD/BR rental market.
This is an area where they feel THEY can get more of the money that others are geting.
How can they do this?
Limit or delay sales to the rental companies, try to prevent rentals completely through licensing, or as we see now, move up PPV.
They've tried many ways and tricks in the past and none of them are working very well.
Moving PPV up in the time lines is their next attempt.
They feel moving PPV would only be worth the try if the analog hole is patched.
It is a sad place we live in if the MPAA is able to swing the government and the entire electronics industry all for the purpose of them feeling comfortable moving PPV release dates up one month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077542</id>
	<title>Wait.. What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258058520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that all this time, me ripping all my porn to Betamax has been <i>illegal</i>?</p><p>Now what am I gonna do...?</p><p>curse you **AA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that all this time , me ripping all my porn to Betamax has been illegal ? Now what am I gon na do... ? curse you * * AA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that all this time, me ripping all my porn to Betamax has been illegal?Now what am I gonna do...?curse you **AA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30078444</id>
	<title>Stupid Statement</title>
	<author>fishthegeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258018680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Offer more content?  Does anyone seriously believe that they're sitting on a blockbuster script with amazing actors signed up for it but they're not going to release it because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.032\% of the viewing population MIGHT stream it over an analog pipe?  If piracy were truly blocking content from distribution then I'd love to see the evidence.  <br> <br>Please show me the 2006  big budget spectacular that was not shown to audiences.  Okay, if you can't do that then please show me the "sure fire formula hit movie" script that is being shunned because of the analog hole.<br> <br>Okay, if you can't do that then please tell me about the wonderful idea that everyone agrees will make millions but will never be created because someone somewhere might have analog streaming capability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Offer more content ?
Does anyone seriously believe that they 're sitting on a blockbuster script with amazing actors signed up for it but they 're not going to release it because .032 \ % of the viewing population MIGHT stream it over an analog pipe ?
If piracy were truly blocking content from distribution then I 'd love to see the evidence .
Please show me the 2006 big budget spectacular that was not shown to audiences .
Okay , if you ca n't do that then please show me the " sure fire formula hit movie " script that is being shunned because of the analog hole .
Okay , if you ca n't do that then please tell me about the wonderful idea that everyone agrees will make millions but will never be created because someone somewhere might have analog streaming capability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offer more content?
Does anyone seriously believe that they're sitting on a blockbuster script with amazing actors signed up for it but they're not going to release it because .032\% of the viewing population MIGHT stream it over an analog pipe?
If piracy were truly blocking content from distribution then I'd love to see the evidence.
Please show me the 2006  big budget spectacular that was not shown to audiences.
Okay, if you can't do that then please show me the "sure fire formula hit movie" script that is being shunned because of the analog hole.
Okay, if you can't do that then please tell me about the wonderful idea that everyone agrees will make millions but will never be created because someone somewhere might have analog streaming capability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074658</id>
	<title>Re:MPAA control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258049520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot story in 2030: MPAA asks again for control over consumers' brains.

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' brains, they could offer more goods to consumers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot story in 2030 : MPAA asks again for control over consumers ' brains .
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers ' brains , they could offer more goods to consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot story in 2030: MPAA asks again for control over consumers' brains.
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' brains, they could offer more goods to consumers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30078468</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1258018740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Certainly they should not be able to do this without permission (contract) with the customer.  That much seems clear.  I'm just not clear on why it's currently illegal for them to create such a contract.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly they should not be able to do this without permission ( contract ) with the customer .
That much seems clear .
I 'm just not clear on why it 's currently illegal for them to create such a contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly they should not be able to do this without permission (contract) with the customer.
That much seems clear.
I'm just not clear on why it's currently illegal for them to create such a contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079584</id>
	<title>Re:MPAA control</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1258022700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shhhhhhh!!! Do not give then ideas!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhhhhhh ! ! !
Do not give then ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhhhhhh!!!
Do not give then ideas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076836</id>
	<title>Good luck with that</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1258056060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that one of the biggest 'analog holes' is the screen and someone with a camcorder, I don't think the pirates will care.The MPAA had a report on one of the local news shows about how pirates were sneaking camcorders into move theaters. In spite of the crappy resolution, people's heads in the bottom of the shot and theater noise in the audio, this stuff still sells. I'd venture a guess that a home TV and a camcorder on a tripod will produce far superior content.
</p><p>Now, consider an unencrypted digital stream from the cable box to the TV set. Its trivial for the cable company to inert a watermark identifying the time, date and cable subscriber recording that stream. I'd venture a guess that most pirates aren't smart enough to find and filter such a label. Even with an analog output, quite a bit of data can be hidden in the video stream. Piracy problem solved. Unless the MPAA is run by a bunch of morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that one of the biggest 'analog holes ' is the screen and someone with a camcorder , I do n't think the pirates will care.The MPAA had a report on one of the local news shows about how pirates were sneaking camcorders into move theaters .
In spite of the crappy resolution , people 's heads in the bottom of the shot and theater noise in the audio , this stuff still sells .
I 'd venture a guess that a home TV and a camcorder on a tripod will produce far superior content .
Now , consider an unencrypted digital stream from the cable box to the TV set .
Its trivial for the cable company to inert a watermark identifying the time , date and cable subscriber recording that stream .
I 'd venture a guess that most pirates are n't smart enough to find and filter such a label .
Even with an analog output , quite a bit of data can be hidden in the video stream .
Piracy problem solved .
Unless the MPAA is run by a bunch of morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that one of the biggest 'analog holes' is the screen and someone with a camcorder, I don't think the pirates will care.The MPAA had a report on one of the local news shows about how pirates were sneaking camcorders into move theaters.
In spite of the crappy resolution, people's heads in the bottom of the shot and theater noise in the audio, this stuff still sells.
I'd venture a guess that a home TV and a camcorder on a tripod will produce far superior content.
Now, consider an unencrypted digital stream from the cable box to the TV set.
Its trivial for the cable company to inert a watermark identifying the time, date and cable subscriber recording that stream.
I'd venture a guess that most pirates aren't smart enough to find and filter such a label.
Even with an analog output, quite a bit of data can be hidden in the video stream.
Piracy problem solved.
Unless the MPAA is run by a bunch of morons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074390</id>
	<title>"would want to", not "could"</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1258048560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article states...</p><blockquote><div><p>"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."</p></div></blockquote><p>It should be... "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they <i>would want to</i> offer more goods to consumers."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...because it has absolutely <i>nothing</i> to do with the ability of offering more goods--it's all about the industry's desire to control what the consumer can do with what the consumer pays for.</p><p>It's an impasse that will likely only be resolved by legislation. Of course, because everything is now relative, THAT doesn't matter as it'll change a couple years later anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article states... " The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
" It should be... " The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they would want to offer more goods to consumers .
" ...because it has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of offering more goods--it 's all about the industry 's desire to control what the consumer can do with what the consumer pays for.It 's an impasse that will likely only be resolved by legislation .
Of course , because everything is now relative , THAT does n't matter as it 'll change a couple years later anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article states..."The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
"It should be... "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they would want to offer more goods to consumers.
" ...because it has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of offering more goods--it's all about the industry's desire to control what the consumer can do with what the consumer pays for.It's an impasse that will likely only be resolved by legislation.
Of course, because everything is now relative, THAT doesn't matter as it'll change a couple years later anyway.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074664</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1258049520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they can never block the final analog hole. well, until they replace our eyes with digital sensors at birth. a camcorder pointed at the screen will always be enough for some people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they can never block the final analog hole .
well , until they replace our eyes with digital sensors at birth .
a camcorder pointed at the screen will always be enough for some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they can never block the final analog hole.
well, until they replace our eyes with digital sensors at birth.
a camcorder pointed at the screen will always be enough for some people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075286</id>
	<title>Re:Every time...</title>
	<author>TechForensics</author>
	<datestamp>1258051140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...  I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this. "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers." Really? REALLY?!?!?</p></div><p>Of course not.  I know you're being ironic, but it should be pointed out *they have no one but consumers* to consume their "goods" at all.  They still have to rent or sell their product to consumers even if consumers can stream or rip to heart's content.  They will accept less revenue rather than forgo revenue completely.  Certainly expect them to fight for as much revenue as they can as long as possible, but this argument about restricting the consumer's "enabling" them to provide more product is a canard, and in fact economically impossible for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I think I ca n't hate the * * AA any more than I already do , they pull crap like this .
" The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
" Really ?
REALLY ? ! ? ! ? Of course not .
I know you 're being ironic , but it should be pointed out * they have no one but consumers * to consume their " goods " at all .
They still have to rent or sell their product to consumers even if consumers can stream or rip to heart 's content .
They will accept less revenue rather than forgo revenue completely .
Certainly expect them to fight for as much revenue as they can as long as possible , but this argument about restricting the consumer 's " enabling " them to provide more product is a canard , and in fact economically impossible for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...  I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this.
"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
" Really?
REALLY?!?!?Of course not.
I know you're being ironic, but it should be pointed out *they have no one but consumers* to consume their "goods" at all.
They still have to rent or sell their product to consumers even if consumers can stream or rip to heart's content.
They will accept less revenue rather than forgo revenue completely.
Certainly expect them to fight for as much revenue as they can as long as possible, but this argument about restricting the consumer's "enabling" them to provide more product is a canard, and in fact economically impossible for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077970</id>
	<title>Analog ports are handcuffing the MPAA???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258016760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has to be the best quote</p><p>"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."</p><p>I'm pretty sure they COULD offer the same "goods" even with those ports on. Last time I checked having analog ports on something never failed to make things work. Have I missed something in the electronic revolution, or is this just another instance of a blatant LIE by the MPAA?</p><p>Have I missed something?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be the best quote " The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off , they could offer more goods to consumers .
" I 'm pretty sure they COULD offer the same " goods " even with those ports on .
Last time I checked having analog ports on something never failed to make things work .
Have I missed something in the electronic revolution , or is this just another instance of a blatant LIE by the MPAA ? Have I missed something ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be the best quote"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
"I'm pretty sure they COULD offer the same "goods" even with those ports on.
Last time I checked having analog ports on something never failed to make things work.
Have I missed something in the electronic revolution, or is this just another instance of a blatant LIE by the MPAA?Have I missed something?
:)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075848</id>
	<title>Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258052820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope. That's why I am a Pirate and I pirate every DVD I buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
That 's why I am a Pirate and I pirate every DVD I buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
That's why I am a Pirate and I pirate every DVD I buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074354</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievable!</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1258048440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious George Carlin question here is " Why do they call it 'goods' when it sucks so badly?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious George Carlin question here is " Why do they call it 'goods ' when it sucks so badly ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious George Carlin question here is " Why do they call it 'goods' when it sucks so badly?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075124</id>
	<title>Re:What exactly are they asking for??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258050660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just read the article and I don't get what the MPAA is even asking for?</p><p>How in the world would they shut off my TV's inputs?<br>AFAIK, component cables do not provide any control or data link to the TV.</p><p>Obviously, if my cable provider wanted to shut off the analog OUTPUTS of the cable box they rent to me, they can do that.</p><p>What are we talking about here?????</p></div><p>They're talking about new TVs, in the future.  You would have to own a lockable TV to have access to their content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just read the article and I do n't get what the MPAA is even asking for ? How in the world would they shut off my TV 's inputs ? AFAIK , component cables do not provide any control or data link to the TV.Obviously , if my cable provider wanted to shut off the analog OUTPUTS of the cable box they rent to me , they can do that.What are we talking about here ? ? ? ?
? They 're talking about new TVs , in the future .
You would have to own a lockable TV to have access to their content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just read the article and I don't get what the MPAA is even asking for?How in the world would they shut off my TV's inputs?AFAIK, component cables do not provide any control or data link to the TV.Obviously, if my cable provider wanted to shut off the analog OUTPUTS of the cable box they rent to me, they can do that.What are we talking about here????
?They're talking about new TVs, in the future.
You would have to own a lockable TV to have access to their content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075768</id>
	<title>Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1258052520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.</p></div><p>Nail + Head<br> <br>They still live under the delusion of entitlement to money for their product (i.e. if I put a product on the market, it will always sell). I don't understand how that is so when they themselves have seen gigantic movie flops, like "The Adventures of Pluto Nash", "Cutthroat Island" (put Carolco out of business... note that this was the same studio/production company that made "Terminator 2"), or "Town and Country", and still think that if they make it people will buy it. Also just because the box office numbers were good does not mean the sales will also be good (there are plenty of movies that you really only need to see once, especially now that we are in sequel and re-hash world, simply re-doing past movies and updating the special effects...).<br> <br>Then to top the above, they keep trying to see us less and less, at higher cost. I can honestly say I have almost completely stopped purchasing CD's (I only buy a few select ones, all of which are private indy labels unaffiliated with the MPAA), and I have also been buying less DVD/BluRay (from a person who has 1000+, I think I have purchased 2 movies this entire year, with only 2 more that I expect to buy for the rest of the year as well, both of which come out next two weeks). The more that they have been doing things like force me to watch previews by locking out the system from accepting commands, the less I have been buying. Maybe one day they will look at themselves and legitimately ask the question, why did they lose out on making sales to someone like me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , as they tighten their control over the products they sell , they ca n't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.Nail + Head They still live under the delusion of entitlement to money for their product ( i.e .
if I put a product on the market , it will always sell ) .
I do n't understand how that is so when they themselves have seen gigantic movie flops , like " The Adventures of Pluto Nash " , " Cutthroat Island " ( put Carolco out of business... note that this was the same studio/production company that made " Terminator 2 " ) , or " Town and Country " , and still think that if they make it people will buy it .
Also just because the box office numbers were good does not mean the sales will also be good ( there are plenty of movies that you really only need to see once , especially now that we are in sequel and re-hash world , simply re-doing past movies and updating the special effects... ) .
Then to top the above , they keep trying to see us less and less , at higher cost .
I can honestly say I have almost completely stopped purchasing CD 's ( I only buy a few select ones , all of which are private indy labels unaffiliated with the MPAA ) , and I have also been buying less DVD/BluRay ( from a person who has 1000 + , I think I have purchased 2 movies this entire year , with only 2 more that I expect to buy for the rest of the year as well , both of which come out next two weeks ) .
The more that they have been doing things like force me to watch previews by locking out the system from accepting commands , the less I have been buying .
Maybe one day they will look at themselves and legitimately ask the question , why did they lose out on making sales to someone like me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.Nail + Head They still live under the delusion of entitlement to money for their product (i.e.
if I put a product on the market, it will always sell).
I don't understand how that is so when they themselves have seen gigantic movie flops, like "The Adventures of Pluto Nash", "Cutthroat Island" (put Carolco out of business... note that this was the same studio/production company that made "Terminator 2"), or "Town and Country", and still think that if they make it people will buy it.
Also just because the box office numbers were good does not mean the sales will also be good (there are plenty of movies that you really only need to see once, especially now that we are in sequel and re-hash world, simply re-doing past movies and updating the special effects...).
Then to top the above, they keep trying to see us less and less, at higher cost.
I can honestly say I have almost completely stopped purchasing CD's (I only buy a few select ones, all of which are private indy labels unaffiliated with the MPAA), and I have also been buying less DVD/BluRay (from a person who has 1000+, I think I have purchased 2 movies this entire year, with only 2 more that I expect to buy for the rest of the year as well, both of which come out next two weeks).
The more that they have been doing things like force me to watch previews by locking out the system from accepting commands, the less I have been buying.
Maybe one day they will look at themselves and legitimately ask the question, why did they lose out on making sales to someone like me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004</id>
	<title>Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas</title>
	<author>sohmc</author>
	<datestamp>1258047300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's bad enough that the American public has to live through really bad sequels.  It's even worse that Hollywood hasn't had a decent original movie in a long time.</p><p>Now, even the lawyers can't think of new ways of screwing the consumer!</p><p>You just can't make this stuff up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's bad enough that the American public has to live through really bad sequels .
It 's even worse that Hollywood has n't had a decent original movie in a long time.Now , even the lawyers ca n't think of new ways of screwing the consumer ! You just ca n't make this stuff up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's bad enough that the American public has to live through really bad sequels.
It's even worse that Hollywood hasn't had a decent original movie in a long time.Now, even the lawyers can't think of new ways of screwing the consumer!You just can't make this stuff up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074378</id>
	<title>Re:They've totally lost the plot</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258048500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if all the digital data is encrypted.  The hardware/software will unencrypted the data right before it goes to the components that displays the information.  A little tap from the chip and you have a TV that will make digital copies of your movies.   Once one person has the digital copy within 24 hours anyone who wants it can get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if all the digital data is encrypted .
The hardware/software will unencrypted the data right before it goes to the components that displays the information .
A little tap from the chip and you have a TV that will make digital copies of your movies .
Once one person has the digital copy within 24 hours anyone who wants it can get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if all the digital data is encrypted.
The hardware/software will unencrypted the data right before it goes to the components that displays the information.
A little tap from the chip and you have a TV that will make digital copies of your movies.
Once one person has the digital copy within 24 hours anyone who wants it can get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079152</id>
	<title>Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1258021260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pirates have stolen all the good ideas. That's why Hollywood keeps going after them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pirates have stolen all the good ideas .
That 's why Hollywood keeps going after them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pirates have stolen all the good ideas.
That's why Hollywood keeps going after them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076092</id>
	<title>"Goods" being the key word here.</title>
	<author>arthurh3535</author>
	<datestamp>1258053540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Limited, DRM enabled goods that they can then charge the end user double for.<br> <br>This isn't actually better for the consumer, guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Limited , DRM enabled goods that they can then charge the end user double for .
This is n't actually better for the consumer , guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Limited, DRM enabled goods that they can then charge the end user double for.
This isn't actually better for the consumer, guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074594</id>
	<title>Re:Much Ado About MPAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258049340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the MPAA doesn't make movies, nor do the RIAA make music. They just license it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the MPAA does n't make movies , nor do the RIAA make music .
They just license it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the MPAA doesn't make movies, nor do the RIAA make music.
They just license it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074170</id>
	<title>Recording component output</title>
	<author>Puzzleer</author>
	<datestamp>1258047900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically, there is only one product I know of that can even record content that comes out of the component output, and that's the Hauppauge HD-PVR.  It's not like people all over the place are using the component video outputs to steal content (and those who do could probably just as easily hack around HDCP).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , there is only one product I know of that can even record content that comes out of the component output , and that 's the Hauppauge HD-PVR .
It 's not like people all over the place are using the component video outputs to steal content ( and those who do could probably just as easily hack around HDCP ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, there is only one product I know of that can even record content that comes out of the component output, and that's the Hauppauge HD-PVR.
It's not like people all over the place are using the component video outputs to steal content (and those who do could probably just as easily hack around HDCP).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30081128</id>
	<title>They all suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258028640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an Oppo DVD player.  I was happy until one day I bought a SACD and tried to play the 5.1 on my Oppo.  Guess what?  No sound!  So I dug through the Oppo manual and it told me that it would not export 5.1 digitally due to copyright reasons.  I have optical out and I refuse to change.  This is beyond stupid.  Why should I not be able to play the CD that I PAID FOR?</p><p>So fuck you RIAA (you too MPAA, by the way).  I am never purchasing a new CD again.  EVER.  I've been tailing off (purchasing mainly used), but never again will they get my money.  If they purchase a law that says they get cuts from used CDs, then I'll stop buying those.  I refuse to fund these assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an Oppo DVD player .
I was happy until one day I bought a SACD and tried to play the 5.1 on my Oppo .
Guess what ?
No sound !
So I dug through the Oppo manual and it told me that it would not export 5.1 digitally due to copyright reasons .
I have optical out and I refuse to change .
This is beyond stupid .
Why should I not be able to play the CD that I PAID FOR ? So fuck you RIAA ( you too MPAA , by the way ) .
I am never purchasing a new CD again .
EVER. I 've been tailing off ( purchasing mainly used ) , but never again will they get my money .
If they purchase a law that says they get cuts from used CDs , then I 'll stop buying those .
I refuse to fund these assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an Oppo DVD player.
I was happy until one day I bought a SACD and tried to play the 5.1 on my Oppo.
Guess what?
No sound!
So I dug through the Oppo manual and it told me that it would not export 5.1 digitally due to copyright reasons.
I have optical out and I refuse to change.
This is beyond stupid.
Why should I not be able to play the CD that I PAID FOR?So fuck you RIAA (you too MPAA, by the way).
I am never purchasing a new CD again.
EVER.  I've been tailing off (purchasing mainly used), but never again will they get my money.
If they purchase a law that says they get cuts from used CDs, then I'll stop buying those.
I refuse to fund these assholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074616</id>
	<title>Sorry</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1258049400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you created the hardware, firmware, or software, I will not allow you to control the ports on a device I purchased.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you created the hardware , firmware , or software , I will not allow you to control the ports on a device I purchased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you created the hardware, firmware, or software, I will not allow you to control the ports on a device I purchased.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075854</id>
	<title>Re:Unbelievable!</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1258052880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck you, you fucking fucks!</p></div><p>Well, that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you , you fucking fucks ! Well , that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you, you fucking fucks!Well, that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075372</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258051380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tuner wouldnt be allowed/able to decrypt the signal.</p><p>That is one of the issues with the whole scheme... they want to pretty much ban hardware that isnt made to their specs.. meh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tuner wouldnt be allowed/able to decrypt the signal.That is one of the issues with the whole scheme... they want to pretty much ban hardware that isnt made to their specs.. meh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tuner wouldnt be allowed/able to decrypt the signal.That is one of the issues with the whole scheme... they want to pretty much ban hardware that isnt made to their specs.. meh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074866</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258050060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because content providers aren't asking consumers "please do this, because if you do, we will do something nice for you".  They are bypassing the consumer and are asking the government to give them lawful access to privately owned consumer electronics in order to disable perfectly legal functionality.  They want to exercise these powers without any indication that the functionality in question is being abused.</p><p>
They are doing this despite the fact that their "studies" are flawed, and are essentially a mix of guesswork and made-up stuff.  They are doing this despite the evidence that suggests that "analog-hole" piracy is a minuscule source of pirated content.
FTFA:  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>"That is because this type of piracy largely does not exist. Most movie piracy occurs before the studios release the movies on home video, much of it through the motion picture studios and their contractors - a fact that studios hide."</p></div><p>
Now, why would content providers go to the government <i>repeatedly</i> for powers that they <i>know</i> will not advance the cause of fighting piracy?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because content providers are n't asking consumers " please do this , because if you do , we will do something nice for you " .
They are bypassing the consumer and are asking the government to give them lawful access to privately owned consumer electronics in order to disable perfectly legal functionality .
They want to exercise these powers without any indication that the functionality in question is being abused .
They are doing this despite the fact that their " studies " are flawed , and are essentially a mix of guesswork and made-up stuff .
They are doing this despite the evidence that suggests that " analog-hole " piracy is a minuscule source of pirated content .
FTFA : " That is because this type of piracy largely does not exist .
Most movie piracy occurs before the studios release the movies on home video , much of it through the motion picture studios and their contractors - a fact that studios hide .
" Now , why would content providers go to the government repeatedly for powers that they know will not advance the cause of fighting piracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because content providers aren't asking consumers "please do this, because if you do, we will do something nice for you".
They are bypassing the consumer and are asking the government to give them lawful access to privately owned consumer electronics in order to disable perfectly legal functionality.
They want to exercise these powers without any indication that the functionality in question is being abused.
They are doing this despite the fact that their "studies" are flawed, and are essentially a mix of guesswork and made-up stuff.
They are doing this despite the evidence that suggests that "analog-hole" piracy is a minuscule source of pirated content.
FTFA:  "That is because this type of piracy largely does not exist.
Most movie piracy occurs before the studios release the movies on home video, much of it through the motion picture studios and their contractors - a fact that studios hide.
"
Now, why would content providers go to the government repeatedly for powers that they know will not advance the cause of fighting piracy?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075582</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1258051920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...It won't even stop you copying the original content<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the analog hole as the last way of copying is a myth</p><p>You can currently copy via the analog hole - but most people do not bother there are easier ways and there always will be?</p><p>The problem is like all Copy protection they give you a locked box and the key and then try and stop you using the key except when they wan to... it *cannot* work</p><p>The only thing that has had any effect on copy protection is their lawsuits and these have not discouraged most people only made them a laughing stock<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....everything else has only hindered the casual non-technical copier, everyone else uses easily downloaded, frequently updated tools that bypass the copy protection<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...It wo n't even stop you copying the original content ... the analog hole as the last way of copying is a mythYou can currently copy via the analog hole - but most people do not bother there are easier ways and there always will be ? The problem is like all Copy protection they give you a locked box and the key and then try and stop you using the key except when they wan to... it * can not * workThe only thing that has had any effect on copy protection is their lawsuits and these have not discouraged most people only made them a laughing stock ....everything else has only hindered the casual non-technical copier , everyone else uses easily downloaded , frequently updated tools that bypass the copy protection ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...It won't even stop you copying the original content ... the analog hole as the last way of copying is a mythYou can currently copy via the analog hole - but most people do not bother there are easier ways and there always will be?The problem is like all Copy protection they give you a locked box and the key and then try and stop you using the key except when they wan to... it *cannot* workThe only thing that has had any effect on copy protection is their lawsuits and these have not discouraged most people only made them a laughing stock ....everything else has only hindered the casual non-technical copier, everyone else uses easily downloaded, frequently updated tools that bypass the copy protection ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076304</id>
	<title>Microslaw satire from 2002</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1258054260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time they tried this in 2002, I sent this satire to the Senate Judiciary via their request for comments:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html" title="pdfernhout.net">http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html</a> [pdfernhout.net]<br>"""<br>This was originally posted to Slashdot on May 25 2002:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33107&amp;cid=3582999" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33107&amp;cid=3582999</a> [slashdot.org]<br>It was in relation to an article: "MPAA to Senate: Plug the Analog Hole!"<br>about the MPAA wanting copyright protection built into all computer hardware. I sent a copy to Richard Stallman back then and he said it made him laugh.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) My comments to the Department of Justice request for comments were in the form of this satire:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Transcript of April 1, 2016 MicroSlaw Presidential Speech (Before final editing prior to release under standard U.S. Government for-fee licensing under 2011 Fee Requirements Law)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success. Economic analysts have proven conclusively that if we hadn't passed laws banning all free software like GNU/Linux and OpenOffice after our economy began its current recession, which started, how many times must I remind everyone, only coincidentally with the shutdown of Napster, that we would be in far worse shape then we are today. RIAA has confidently assured me that if independent artists were allowed to release works without using their compensation system and royalty rates, music CD sales would be even lower than their recent inexplicably low levels. The MPAA has also detailed how historically the movie industry was nearly destroyed in the 1980s by the VCR until that too was banned and all so called fair use exemptions eliminated. So clearly, these successes with software, content, and hardware indicate the value of a similar approach to law.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There are many reasons for the value of proprietary law. You all know them since you have been taught them in school since kindergarten as part of your standardized education. They are reflected in our most fundamental beliefs, such as sharing denies the delight of payment and cookies can only be brought into the classroom if you bring enough to sell to everyone. But you are always free to eat them all yourself of course! [audience chuckles knowingly]. But I think it important to repeat such fundamental truths now as they form the core of all we hold dear in this great land.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; First off, we all know our current set of laws requires a micropayment each time a U.S. law is discussed, referenced, or applied by any person anywhere in the world. This financial incentive has produced a large amount of new law over the last decade. This body of law is all based on a core legal code owned by that fine example of American corporate capitalism at its best, the MicroSlaw Corporation.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>"""</p><p>And it goes on from there...</p><p>I sent it to Richard Stallman too, and he said it made him laugh.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time they tried this in 2002 , I sent this satire to the Senate Judiciary via their request for comments :     http : //www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html [ pdfernhout.net ] " " " This was originally posted to Slashdot on May 25 2002 :         http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 33107&amp;cid = 3582999 [ slashdot.org ] It was in relation to an article : " MPAA to Senate : Plug the Analog Hole !
" about the MPAA wanting copyright protection built into all computer hardware .
I sent a copy to Richard Stallman back then and he said it made him laugh .
: - ) My comments to the Department of Justice request for comments were in the form of this satire :     Transcript of April 1 , 2016 MicroSlaw Presidential Speech ( Before final editing prior to release under standard U.S. Government for-fee licensing under 2011 Fee Requirements Law )     My fellow Americans .
There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers ( the GPL ) who we all know hold un-American views .
I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary .
The value of proprietary law should be obvious .
Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate , and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success .
Economic analysts have proven conclusively that if we had n't passed laws banning all free software like GNU/Linux and OpenOffice after our economy began its current recession , which started , how many times must I remind everyone , only coincidentally with the shutdown of Napster , that we would be in far worse shape then we are today .
RIAA has confidently assured me that if independent artists were allowed to release works without using their compensation system and royalty rates , music CD sales would be even lower than their recent inexplicably low levels .
The MPAA has also detailed how historically the movie industry was nearly destroyed in the 1980s by the VCR until that too was banned and all so called fair use exemptions eliminated .
So clearly , these successes with software , content , and hardware indicate the value of a similar approach to law .
    There are many reasons for the value of proprietary law .
You all know them since you have been taught them in school since kindergarten as part of your standardized education .
They are reflected in our most fundamental beliefs , such as sharing denies the delight of payment and cookies can only be brought into the classroom if you bring enough to sell to everyone .
But you are always free to eat them all yourself of course !
[ audience chuckles knowingly ] .
But I think it important to repeat such fundamental truths now as they form the core of all we hold dear in this great land .
    First off , we all know our current set of laws requires a micropayment each time a U.S. law is discussed , referenced , or applied by any person anywhere in the world .
This financial incentive has produced a large amount of new law over the last decade .
This body of law is all based on a core legal code owned by that fine example of American corporate capitalism at its best , the MicroSlaw Corporation .
... " " " And it goes on from there...I sent it to Richard Stallman too , and he said it made him laugh .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time they tried this in 2002, I sent this satire to the Senate Judiciary via their request for comments:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html [pdfernhout.net]"""This was originally posted to Slashdot on May 25 2002:
        http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33107&amp;cid=3582999 [slashdot.org]It was in relation to an article: "MPAA to Senate: Plug the Analog Hole!
"about the MPAA wanting copyright protection built into all computer hardware.
I sent a copy to Richard Stallman back then and he said it made him laugh.
:-) My comments to the Department of Justice request for comments were in the form of this satire:
    Transcript of April 1, 2016 MicroSlaw Presidential Speech (Before final editing prior to release under standard U.S. Government for-fee licensing under 2011 Fee Requirements Law)
    My fellow Americans.
There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views.
I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary.
The value of proprietary law should be obvious.
Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success.
Economic analysts have proven conclusively that if we hadn't passed laws banning all free software like GNU/Linux and OpenOffice after our economy began its current recession, which started, how many times must I remind everyone, only coincidentally with the shutdown of Napster, that we would be in far worse shape then we are today.
RIAA has confidently assured me that if independent artists were allowed to release works without using their compensation system and royalty rates, music CD sales would be even lower than their recent inexplicably low levels.
The MPAA has also detailed how historically the movie industry was nearly destroyed in the 1980s by the VCR until that too was banned and all so called fair use exemptions eliminated.
So clearly, these successes with software, content, and hardware indicate the value of a similar approach to law.
    There are many reasons for the value of proprietary law.
You all know them since you have been taught them in school since kindergarten as part of your standardized education.
They are reflected in our most fundamental beliefs, such as sharing denies the delight of payment and cookies can only be brought into the classroom if you bring enough to sell to everyone.
But you are always free to eat them all yourself of course!
[audience chuckles knowingly].
But I think it important to repeat such fundamental truths now as they form the core of all we hold dear in this great land.
    First off, we all know our current set of laws requires a micropayment each time a U.S. law is discussed, referenced, or applied by any person anywhere in the world.
This financial incentive has produced a large amount of new law over the last decade.
This body of law is all based on a core legal code owned by that fine example of American corporate capitalism at its best, the MicroSlaw Corporation.
..."""And it goes on from there...I sent it to Richard Stallman too, and he said it made him laugh.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30081154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30108332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30086246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30080064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30085544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30083104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30080816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30078468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30082986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30109102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_162242_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30080816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30073968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074866
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30080064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30078468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30083104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30081154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079672
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30082986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30085544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30109102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30079828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30108332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30076136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30086246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30077846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30075204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_162242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_162242.30074032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
