<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_15_2119230</id>
	<title>Copyright Time Bomb Set To Go Off</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258290360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>In September we discussed <a href="//entertainment.slashdot.org/story/09/09/21/225211/Jack-Kirby-Heirs-Reclaim-MarvelDisney-Rights">one isolated instance</a> of the heirs of rights-holders filing for copyright termination. Now <em>Wired</em> discusses the general case &mdash; many copyrights from 1978 and before could <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/11/copyright-time-bomb-set-to-disrupt-music-publishing-industries/">come up for grabs</a> in a few years. Some are already in play. <i>"At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable copyrights to '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s music, much of which still sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion. ... The <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202434372952">Eagles plan to file</a> grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer]. 'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They're going to do it; it's coming up.' ...If the labels' best strategy to avoid losing copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme disadvantage is the same one they're suing other companies for using, they're in for quite a bumpy &mdash; or, rather, an even bumpier &mdash; ride."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>In September we discussed one isolated instance of the heirs of rights-holders filing for copyright termination .
Now Wired discusses the general case    many copyrights from 1978 and before could come up for grabs in a few years .
Some are already in play .
" At a time when record labels and , to a lesser extent , music publishers , find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction , the last thing they need is to start losing valuable copyrights to '50s , '60s , '70s and '80s music , much of which still sells as well or better than more recently released fare .
Nonetheless , the wheels are already in motion .
... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It 's going to happen, ' said [ an industry lawyer ] .
'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog .
They do n't need a record company now... You 'll be able to go to Eagles.com ( currently under construction ) and get all their songs .
They 're going to do it ; it 's coming up .
' ...If the labels ' best strategy to avoid losing copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme disadvantage is the same one they 're suing other companies for using , they 're in for quite a bumpy    or , rather , an even bumpier    ride .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In September we discussed one isolated instance of the heirs of rights-holders filing for copyright termination.
Now Wired discusses the general case — many copyrights from 1978 and before could come up for grabs in a few years.
Some are already in play.
"At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable copyrights to '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s music, much of which still sells as well or better than more recently released fare.
Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion.
... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer].
'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog.
They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs.
They're going to do it; it's coming up.
' ...If the labels' best strategy to avoid losing copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme disadvantage is the same one they're suing other companies for using, they're in for quite a bumpy — or, rather, an even bumpier — ride.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30119526</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258402140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't create anything, do you?</p><p>All creative works, musical or not, are based on the work of other people to some degree. That's how INNOVATION works. Someone comes up with an idea, someone else expands on that idea in their own way.... badabing....</p><p>OR. . . . alternatively, we can move further into this musical hell of "copyright police", that further stifles creative progress and keeps every genre imaginable degrading into pure crap . . .</p><p>Are you saying the entire genre of jazz is crap as well?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't create anything , do you ? All creative works , musical or not , are based on the work of other people to some degree .
That 's how INNOVATION works .
Someone comes up with an idea , someone else expands on that idea in their own way.... badabing....OR. .
. .
alternatively , we can move further into this musical hell of " copyright police " , that further stifles creative progress and keeps every genre imaginable degrading into pure crap .
. .Are you saying the entire genre of jazz is crap as well ?
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't create anything, do you?All creative works, musical or not, are based on the work of other people to some degree.
That's how INNOVATION works.
Someone comes up with an idea, someone else expands on that idea in their own way.... badabing....OR. .
. .
alternatively, we can move further into this musical hell of "copyright police", that further stifles creative progress and keeps every genre imaginable degrading into pure crap .
. .Are you saying the entire genre of jazz is crap as well?
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30127152</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1258454580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles without having to line the pocket books of a RIAA affiliated label.</i></p><p>Ehmm yeah, but if the copyright is expiring and it should be going into the public domain...why pay for it at all when should actually be *allowed* to copy it to our heart's content?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All us " pirates " that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles without having to line the pocket books of a RIAA affiliated label.Ehmm yeah , but if the copyright is expiring and it should be going into the public domain...why pay for it at all when should actually be * allowed * to copy it to our heart 's content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles without having to line the pocket books of a RIAA affiliated label.Ehmm yeah, but if the copyright is expiring and it should be going into the public domain...why pay for it at all when should actually be *allowed* to copy it to our heart's content?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114648</id>
	<title>Speedy Wheels of Justice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258383540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.</p></div></blockquote><p>And I look forward to seeing the case conclude by the end of my lifetime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.And I look forward to seeing the case conclude by the end of my lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.And I look forward to seeing the case conclude by the end of my lifetime.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114872</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1258385040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's always more difficult to create original works than to mash together the works of those more talented than you, and call it an original creation.  It's like someone coming up with an idea, getting it produced in China, and then watching the substandard copies roll out of <i>shanzhai</i> factories.  You get all the criticism, and they get all the credit for being new and fresh (not to mention the profits).  A better man might have said "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."  An entertainer in 2009 might have said "Congratulations Rihanna on your Grammy award win. You have done our country [of](sic) Barbados proud!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always more difficult to create original works than to mash together the works of those more talented than you , and call it an original creation .
It 's like someone coming up with an idea , getting it produced in China , and then watching the substandard copies roll out of shanzhai factories .
You get all the criticism , and they get all the credit for being new and fresh ( not to mention the profits ) .
A better man might have said " If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants .
" An entertainer in 2009 might have said " Congratulations Rihanna on your Grammy award win .
You have done our country [ of ] ( sic ) Barbados proud !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always more difficult to create original works than to mash together the works of those more talented than you, and call it an original creation.
It's like someone coming up with an idea, getting it produced in China, and then watching the substandard copies roll out of shanzhai factories.
You get all the criticism, and they get all the credit for being new and fresh (not to mention the profits).
A better man might have said "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.
"  An entertainer in 2009 might have said "Congratulations Rihanna on your Grammy award win.
You have done our country [of](sic) Barbados proud!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30121162</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1258364760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow really?  There IS a point where its just too much, not everyone has the corporatist mentality of scraping out every last penny they possibly can. it IS ok to leave money on the table Try to remember you are a human being and that wealth at that level is FAR beyond what you need to ever just survive, so why take more just for the sake of taking more?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow really ?
There IS a point where its just too much , not everyone has the corporatist mentality of scraping out every last penny they possibly can .
it IS ok to leave money on the table Try to remember you are a human being and that wealth at that level is FAR beyond what you need to ever just survive , so why take more just for the sake of taking more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow really?
There IS a point where its just too much, not everyone has the corporatist mentality of scraping out every last penny they possibly can.
it IS ok to leave money on the table Try to remember you are a human being and that wealth at that level is FAR beyond what you need to ever just survive, so why take more just for the sake of taking more?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118902</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258400340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you think the Eagles are just a bunch of rubes who won't do anything to protect their copyrights?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you think the Eagles are just a bunch of rubes who wo n't do anything to protect their copyrights ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you think the Eagles are just a bunch of rubes who won't do anything to protect their copyrights?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114600</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>perlchild</author>
	<datestamp>1258383240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how this is bad either.  As for publishers... If they really feared this, they could always have offered longer contracts to artists... a 55 year contract? YUP!</p><p>Oh wait you mean they wouldn't have made so much money off the artists?  What? You mean giving more money to artists back in the napster days was only ok... if it wasn't your money?</p><p>Hopefully, in ten years, the RIAA member companies will exit the music business, or be bankrupt.  If you work for them, please find other work now.  I'm so against them getting a bailout then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this is bad either .
As for publishers... If they really feared this , they could always have offered longer contracts to artists... a 55 year contract ?
YUP ! Oh wait you mean they would n't have made so much money off the artists ?
What ? You mean giving more money to artists back in the napster days was only ok... if it was n't your money ? Hopefully , in ten years , the RIAA member companies will exit the music business , or be bankrupt .
If you work for them , please find other work now .
I 'm so against them getting a bailout then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this is bad either.
As for publishers... If they really feared this, they could always have offered longer contracts to artists... a 55 year contract?
YUP!Oh wait you mean they wouldn't have made so much money off the artists?
What? You mean giving more money to artists back in the napster days was only ok... if it wasn't your money?Hopefully, in ten years, the RIAA member companies will exit the music business, or be bankrupt.
If you work for them, please find other work now.
I'm so against them getting a bailout then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30117580</id>
	<title>Why is Publishing So Complicated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258396260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am an artist (musician for this discussion).  As my "publisher" I grant you permission to print 10,000 CD's @ $3 each for my royalty, payable now.  After you have sold said 10,000 copies you may contract with me to print another 10,000 copies at my rate of $3 each, again paid in advance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an artist ( musician for this discussion ) .
As my " publisher " I grant you permission to print 10,000 CD 's @ $ 3 each for my royalty , payable now .
After you have sold said 10,000 copies you may contract with me to print another 10,000 copies at my rate of $ 3 each , again paid in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an artist (musician for this discussion).
As my "publisher" I grant you permission to print 10,000 CD's @ $3 each for my royalty, payable now.
After you have sold said 10,000 copies you may contract with me to print another 10,000 copies at my rate of $3 each, again paid in advance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30119582</id>
	<title>Appears that does happen...</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1258402320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> You know damn well if you tried this yourself, the RIAA would be all over your ass</p></div><p>Indeed, that does appear to happen. From TFA:</p><p>"This might sound familiar, because BlueBeat.com employed similar logic in creating new copyrights to Beatles songs &mdash; right before it was sued by EMI and a judge barred them from continuing to sell the songs."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know damn well if you tried this yourself , the RIAA would be all over your assIndeed , that does appear to happen .
From TFA : " This might sound familiar , because BlueBeat.com employed similar logic in creating new copyrights to Beatles songs    right before it was sued by EMI and a judge barred them from continuing to sell the songs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You know damn well if you tried this yourself, the RIAA would be all over your assIndeed, that does appear to happen.
From TFA:"This might sound familiar, because BlueBeat.com employed similar logic in creating new copyrights to Beatles songs — right before it was sued by EMI and a judge barred them from continuing to sell the songs.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114458</id>
	<title>Immortality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258381980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe these aging musicians are realizing that immortality (spreading ones memes as widely as possible) is more important than personal wealth in the greater scheme of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe these aging musicians are realizing that immortality ( spreading ones memes as widely as possible ) is more important than personal wealth in the greater scheme of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe these aging musicians are realizing that immortality (spreading ones memes as widely as possible) is more important than personal wealth in the greater scheme of things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114948</id>
	<title>Re:What I find particularly interesting about this</title>
	<author>Sfing\_ter</author>
	<datestamp>1258385460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When making a statement (young musicians), it is usually proper to list some examples... oh wait, you didn't say TALENTED YOUNG MUSICIANS, whew...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When making a statement ( young musicians ) , it is usually proper to list some examples... oh wait , you did n't say TALENTED YOUNG MUSICIANS , whew.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When making a statement (young musicians), it is usually proper to list some examples... oh wait, you didn't say TALENTED YOUNG MUSICIANS, whew...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114658</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258383600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;cord labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014</p><p>I predict a sudden explosion of disco on the oldies radio stations.  They won't be able to play that music for free (since it belongs to the artists), but I bet it will be a lot cheaper than what the megacorps are asking.</p><p>On the other hand,  <b>    maybe Obama will come to the record companies rescue,    </b>    and alter the law in some fast-track legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; cord labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013 , 1979 in 2014I predict a sudden explosion of disco on the oldies radio stations .
They wo n't be able to play that music for free ( since it belongs to the artists ) , but I bet it will be a lot cheaper than what the megacorps are asking.On the other hand , maybe Obama will come to the record companies rescue , and alter the law in some fast-track legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;cord labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014I predict a sudden explosion of disco on the oldies radio stations.
They won't be able to play that music for free (since it belongs to the artists), but I bet it will be a lot cheaper than what the megacorps are asking.On the other hand,      maybe Obama will come to the record companies rescue,        and alter the law in some fast-track legislation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114434</id>
	<title>Oh dear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258381800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a disaster! Record labels will have to find some way of making people pay them for newer content!<br> <br>Now, do you reckon they'll make the newer content worth hearing, or do you reckon they'll bribe lawmakers to force us to pay for it whether we listen to it or not (blank media taxation and the like)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a disaster !
Record labels will have to find some way of making people pay them for newer content !
Now , do you reckon they 'll make the newer content worth hearing , or do you reckon they 'll bribe lawmakers to force us to pay for it whether we listen to it or not ( blank media taxation and the like ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a disaster!
Record labels will have to find some way of making people pay them for newer content!
Now, do you reckon they'll make the newer content worth hearing, or do you reckon they'll bribe lawmakers to force us to pay for it whether we listen to it or not (blank media taxation and the like)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30126484</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>sunspot42</author>
	<datestamp>1258400940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I checked out their website a year or so back, The Eagles were offering their latest album in FLAC format for about the same price as the CD.  They were always a very fidelity-conscious act - their '70s records were sonically flawless - so I wouldn't be surprised to see their catalog crop up in FLAC format at their website.</p><p>That's one of the reasons why I've held off picking up the latest remasters.  I hear they sound great, but why split the profits with the do-nothing crackheads at Warner?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I checked out their website a year or so back , The Eagles were offering their latest album in FLAC format for about the same price as the CD .
They were always a very fidelity-conscious act - their '70s records were sonically flawless - so I would n't be surprised to see their catalog crop up in FLAC format at their website.That 's one of the reasons why I 've held off picking up the latest remasters .
I hear they sound great , but why split the profits with the do-nothing crackheads at Warner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I checked out their website a year or so back, The Eagles were offering their latest album in FLAC format for about the same price as the CD.
They were always a very fidelity-conscious act - their '70s records were sonically flawless - so I wouldn't be surprised to see their catalog crop up in FLAC format at their website.That's one of the reasons why I've held off picking up the latest remasters.
I hear they sound great, but why split the profits with the do-nothing crackheads at Warner?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116822</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1258393680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Done well, sampling can be innovative. Done poorly, it isn't. Like most things, only a few cases are in the done well category, but they do exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Done well , sampling can be innovative .
Done poorly , it is n't .
Like most things , only a few cases are in the done well category , but they do exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Done well, sampling can be innovative.
Done poorly, it isn't.
Like most things, only a few cases are in the done well category, but they do exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118294</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting times</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1258398420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't know why this got modded up so much. I think it shows a certain chain of logic failure that *starts* with the artist.<br> <br> <i>A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day.</i> <br> <br>And a guy who plays the guitar is qualified to have made better business decision how exactly? Artists willfully sign up for what a label offers. There is no gun to anyone's head. The market conditions set the price and artists have been free to take it or leave it since the first publications of recorded music. These same artists you've chosen to treat like victims reaped just as much benefit from the system as those who publish, distributed and advertised their product but the artists got away with not doing the heavy lifting. Independent publication has been going on forever and a lot of the artists you hail as victims of this system did actually publish their own work for a few releases and later turned towards labels for their services. You *can not* tell me that these artists who took this route didn't do this for a reason. Think about it for a moment, please.<br> <br> <i>Quite a lot of young artists now, realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution, not easy on an international stage without limited funds, but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album.</i> <br> <br>This is far from new and most of the artists in the same ilk as The Eagles have already done the indy route with various results. The reason that many of them are still known today and their 30+ year old music still has value has more to do with the labels than the merits of the artists. I've seen tons of good artists go by the wayside who had as solid a product as anyone else but just didn't have the right distribution and advertisement channels to take real advantage of it. It sucks that it happens and the internet has gone a long way to eliminate the need for this but it's still a truth that simply could not be ignored in it's time and day.<br> <br>And I hate to tell you this but an indie artist who has a poor album would feel lucky to be "bent over" by a label if they have a poor selling album. The financial set backs that happen to an artist releasing a poor selling product is much heavier than them simply being booted from a label. Again, this is changing but for the most part even today a lot of artists would never see a properly produced and marketed album without some assistance. Financial backing is a make or break watermark in a lot of musical careers.<br> <br> <i>I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands, direct from their sites, to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise. I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole. I can't say I like the Eagles much, another super-rich corp band to my mind, but it's their work and good luck to them!</i> <br> <br>Yeah, I've tended to listen to more indy music than anything else too but at the same time I think if labels become too standoffish too soon that there will be talent that will slip through the cracks. I guess it happens in just about every market.<br> <br>But at the same time I really don't know how much of a real victory this is. The Eagles are going to do well because they're established and the truth of the matter is that it's just a copyright changing hands. From the man-on-the-street prospective it's not really going to open up anything that isn't already there today. The Eagles made a conscious decision to give up their rights when they signed in the first place. I feel no sympathy for people who make a bad decision and certainly not to the point that they deserve legal protection. Don't think for a second that if The Eagles see a way to twist copyright to their favor for additional gains that they won't jump on the chance. Actually, if you stop and think about it that *is* what they're doing with this maneuver. The label took a risk, The Eagles will get paid and we won't see anything come out of this in a real tangable fashion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't know why this got modded up so much .
I think it shows a certain chain of logic failure that * starts * with the artist .
A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day .
And a guy who plays the guitar is qualified to have made better business decision how exactly ?
Artists willfully sign up for what a label offers .
There is no gun to anyone 's head .
The market conditions set the price and artists have been free to take it or leave it since the first publications of recorded music .
These same artists you 've chosen to treat like victims reaped just as much benefit from the system as those who publish , distributed and advertised their product but the artists got away with not doing the heavy lifting .
Independent publication has been going on forever and a lot of the artists you hail as victims of this system did actually publish their own work for a few releases and later turned towards labels for their services .
You * can not * tell me that these artists who took this route did n't do this for a reason .
Think about it for a moment , please .
Quite a lot of young artists now , realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution , not easy on an international stage without limited funds , but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album .
This is far from new and most of the artists in the same ilk as The Eagles have already done the indy route with various results .
The reason that many of them are still known today and their 30 + year old music still has value has more to do with the labels than the merits of the artists .
I 've seen tons of good artists go by the wayside who had as solid a product as anyone else but just did n't have the right distribution and advertisement channels to take real advantage of it .
It sucks that it happens and the internet has gone a long way to eliminate the need for this but it 's still a truth that simply could not be ignored in it 's time and day .
And I hate to tell you this but an indie artist who has a poor album would feel lucky to be " bent over " by a label if they have a poor selling album .
The financial set backs that happen to an artist releasing a poor selling product is much heavier than them simply being booted from a label .
Again , this is changing but for the most part even today a lot of artists would never see a properly produced and marketed album without some assistance .
Financial backing is a make or break watermark in a lot of musical careers .
I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands , direct from their sites , to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise .
I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole .
I ca n't say I like the Eagles much , another super-rich corp band to my mind , but it 's their work and good luck to them !
Yeah , I 've tended to listen to more indy music than anything else too but at the same time I think if labels become too standoffish too soon that there will be talent that will slip through the cracks .
I guess it happens in just about every market .
But at the same time I really do n't know how much of a real victory this is .
The Eagles are going to do well because they 're established and the truth of the matter is that it 's just a copyright changing hands .
From the man-on-the-street prospective it 's not really going to open up anything that is n't already there today .
The Eagles made a conscious decision to give up their rights when they signed in the first place .
I feel no sympathy for people who make a bad decision and certainly not to the point that they deserve legal protection .
Do n't think for a second that if The Eagles see a way to twist copyright to their favor for additional gains that they wo n't jump on the chance .
Actually , if you stop and think about it that * is * what they 're doing with this maneuver .
The label took a risk , The Eagles will get paid and we wo n't see anything come out of this in a real tangable fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't know why this got modded up so much.
I think it shows a certain chain of logic failure that *starts* with the artist.
A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day.
And a guy who plays the guitar is qualified to have made better business decision how exactly?
Artists willfully sign up for what a label offers.
There is no gun to anyone's head.
The market conditions set the price and artists have been free to take it or leave it since the first publications of recorded music.
These same artists you've chosen to treat like victims reaped just as much benefit from the system as those who publish, distributed and advertised their product but the artists got away with not doing the heavy lifting.
Independent publication has been going on forever and a lot of the artists you hail as victims of this system did actually publish their own work for a few releases and later turned towards labels for their services.
You *can not* tell me that these artists who took this route didn't do this for a reason.
Think about it for a moment, please.
Quite a lot of young artists now, realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution, not easy on an international stage without limited funds, but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album.
This is far from new and most of the artists in the same ilk as The Eagles have already done the indy route with various results.
The reason that many of them are still known today and their 30+ year old music still has value has more to do with the labels than the merits of the artists.
I've seen tons of good artists go by the wayside who had as solid a product as anyone else but just didn't have the right distribution and advertisement channels to take real advantage of it.
It sucks that it happens and the internet has gone a long way to eliminate the need for this but it's still a truth that simply could not be ignored in it's time and day.
And I hate to tell you this but an indie artist who has a poor album would feel lucky to be "bent over" by a label if they have a poor selling album.
The financial set backs that happen to an artist releasing a poor selling product is much heavier than them simply being booted from a label.
Again, this is changing but for the most part even today a lot of artists would never see a properly produced and marketed album without some assistance.
Financial backing is a make or break watermark in a lot of musical careers.
I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands, direct from their sites, to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise.
I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole.
I can't say I like the Eagles much, another super-rich corp band to my mind, but it's their work and good luck to them!
Yeah, I've tended to listen to more indy music than anything else too but at the same time I think if labels become too standoffish too soon that there will be talent that will slip through the cracks.
I guess it happens in just about every market.
But at the same time I really don't know how much of a real victory this is.
The Eagles are going to do well because they're established and the truth of the matter is that it's just a copyright changing hands.
From the man-on-the-street prospective it's not really going to open up anything that isn't already there today.
The Eagles made a conscious decision to give up their rights when they signed in the first place.
I feel no sympathy for people who make a bad decision and certainly not to the point that they deserve legal protection.
Don't think for a second that if The Eagles see a way to twist copyright to their favor for additional gains that they won't jump on the chance.
Actually, if you stop and think about it that *is* what they're doing with this maneuver.
The label took a risk, The Eagles will get paid and we won't see anything come out of this in a real tangable fashion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114772</id>
	<title>Re:Effect on games, etc.?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1258384380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How with this affect any games, movies, etc. that currently have authorization to use the music? Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?</p></div><p>For educational purposes, I found two apparently conflicting short sentences, a very tiny part of a very long public web page written by an attorney on this topic, and my criticism is I do not see how it explained this conflict.  My guess, is this is one of those situations where it appears pretty vague in American English, but using precise legal definitions its crystal clear?</p><p>"Despite termination, the right to continue to exploit previously-prepared derivative works (e.g., a motion picture based on a book) may be immune, or safe from termination."</p><p>"That is, after transfer of rights in the underlying work is terminated, the owner of the derivative work (e.g., motion picture version of a novel) has no right to continue exploiting the work in any manner."</p><p><a href="http://www.copylaw.com/new\_articles/copyterm.html" title="copylaw.com">http://www.copylaw.com/new\_articles/copyterm.html</a> [copylaw.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How with this affect any games , movies , etc .
that currently have authorization to use the music ?
Could this be used to require guitar hero , etc .
to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music does n't want it in the game ? For educational purposes , I found two apparently conflicting short sentences , a very tiny part of a very long public web page written by an attorney on this topic , and my criticism is I do not see how it explained this conflict .
My guess , is this is one of those situations where it appears pretty vague in American English , but using precise legal definitions its crystal clear ?
" Despite termination , the right to continue to exploit previously-prepared derivative works ( e.g. , a motion picture based on a book ) may be immune , or safe from termination .
" " That is , after transfer of rights in the underlying work is terminated , the owner of the derivative work ( e.g. , motion picture version of a novel ) has no right to continue exploiting the work in any manner .
" http : //www.copylaw.com/new \ _articles/copyterm.html [ copylaw.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How with this affect any games, movies, etc.
that currently have authorization to use the music?
Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc.
to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?For educational purposes, I found two apparently conflicting short sentences, a very tiny part of a very long public web page written by an attorney on this topic, and my criticism is I do not see how it explained this conflict.
My guess, is this is one of those situations where it appears pretty vague in American English, but using precise legal definitions its crystal clear?
"Despite termination, the right to continue to exploit previously-prepared derivative works (e.g., a motion picture based on a book) may be immune, or safe from termination.
""That is, after transfer of rights in the underlying work is terminated, the owner of the derivative work (e.g., motion picture version of a novel) has no right to continue exploiting the work in any manner.
"http://www.copylaw.com/new\_articles/copyterm.html [copylaw.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114482</id>
	<title>Re:Its time to think about the future, not the pas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258382280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Musicians should make music because they work for the people. I think it all comes down to the corrosive influence of Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal sympathies on the couscousness of our generation. Why can't I eat an orange in peace? Because the IRS bought it with their ray guns!</p><p>You haven't visited the Ray Gun Pyramid.</p><p>Or for that matter the great Neo Library.</p><p>Neo Nacho.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Musicians should make music because they work for the people .
I think it all comes down to the corrosive influence of Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal sympathies on the couscousness of our generation .
Why ca n't I eat an orange in peace ?
Because the IRS bought it with their ray guns ! You have n't visited the Ray Gun Pyramid.Or for that matter the great Neo Library.Neo Nacho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Musicians should make music because they work for the people.
I think it all comes down to the corrosive influence of Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal sympathies on the couscousness of our generation.
Why can't I eat an orange in peace?
Because the IRS bought it with their ray guns!You haven't visited the Ray Gun Pyramid.Or for that matter the great Neo Library.Neo Nacho.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114578</id>
	<title>This is awesome.</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1258383000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goodbye, record labels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goodbye , record labels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goodbye, record labels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116616</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1258393020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles</p></div><p>That depends, are they theoretically offering quality MP3/Ogg/whatever, or is it gonna be RealMedia DRMd crap? Because one of these things is not like the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All us " pirates " that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the EaglesThat depends , are they theoretically offering quality MP3/Ogg/whatever , or is it gon na be RealMedia DRMd crap ?
Because one of these things is not like the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the EaglesThat depends, are they theoretically offering quality MP3/Ogg/whatever, or is it gonna be RealMedia DRMd crap?
Because one of these things is not like the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30133204</id>
	<title>Turn up the Eagles, the neighbors are listening.</title>
	<author>GungaDan</author>
	<datestamp>1258490040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eagles music should not require any copyright protection beyond that afforded to other forms of white noise. Very few forms of noise are whiter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eagles music should not require any copyright protection beyond that afforded to other forms of white noise .
Very few forms of noise are whiter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eagles music should not require any copyright protection beyond that afforded to other forms of white noise.
Very few forms of noise are whiter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114622</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258383420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>           Sadly the term publisher masks a host of leeches that feed upon the artists and the public. In essence if you get a contract you can subcontract everything and simply sit back and get a free lunch.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Going back in time a bit the publishers had to hire a scribe as an employee to prepare the original and then print it and issue it themselves. Those days are long gone. Today even the big name artists often gain nothing at all from record production but make their entire living from in person appearances and the sale of T shirts and other gimmicks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly the term publisher masks a host of leeches that feed upon the artists and the public .
In essence if you get a contract you can subcontract everything and simply sit back and get a free lunch .
                      Going back in time a bit the publishers had to hire a scribe as an employee to prepare the original and then print it and issue it themselves .
Those days are long gone .
Today even the big name artists often gain nothing at all from record production but make their entire living from in person appearances and the sale of T shirts and other gimmicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>           Sadly the term publisher masks a host of leeches that feed upon the artists and the public.
In essence if you get a contract you can subcontract everything and simply sit back and get a free lunch.
                      Going back in time a bit the publishers had to hire a scribe as an employee to prepare the original and then print it and issue it themselves.
Those days are long gone.
Today even the big name artists often gain nothing at all from record production but make their entire living from in person appearances and the sale of T shirts and other gimmicks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30117238</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1258395240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio it feels like someone is raping my eardrums."</p><p>Well then, turn the treble down FFS! It's supposed to be reminiscient of a harpsichord in the beginning of the song, of course the steel guitar fails miserably at that because there's just not enough internal room for sound development inside the small guitar body, so of course it will sound like that.</p><p>Also, that only sounds like that on the remastered/re-released Hotel California. On the original vinyl, the treble is much less powerful, so it sounds softer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio it feels like someone is raping my eardrums .
" Well then , turn the treble down FFS !
It 's supposed to be reminiscient of a harpsichord in the beginning of the song , of course the steel guitar fails miserably at that because there 's just not enough internal room for sound development inside the small guitar body , so of course it will sound like that.Also , that only sounds like that on the remastered/re-released Hotel California .
On the original vinyl , the treble is much less powerful , so it sounds softer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio it feels like someone is raping my eardrums.
"Well then, turn the treble down FFS!
It's supposed to be reminiscient of a harpsichord in the beginning of the song, of course the steel guitar fails miserably at that because there's just not enough internal room for sound development inside the small guitar body, so of course it will sound like that.Also, that only sounds like that on the remastered/re-released Hotel California.
On the original vinyl, the treble is much less powerful, so it sounds softer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114838</id>
	<title>Re:Effect on games, etc.?</title>
	<author>Jared555</author>
	<datestamp>1258384860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In response to multiple posts saying you can't unlicense the music, etc.  Here is another question:</p><p>If it is licensed under terms where a certain percentage of sales goes to the record company in exchange for the song, or a certain percent of movie sales goes to the publisher of the book...</p><p>Will the record company/publisher/whatever still be getting paid even though they no longer hold the rights to the work, or will whoever it is licensed to be required to pay the original author/artist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In response to multiple posts saying you ca n't unlicense the music , etc .
Here is another question : If it is licensed under terms where a certain percentage of sales goes to the record company in exchange for the song , or a certain percent of movie sales goes to the publisher of the book...Will the record company/publisher/whatever still be getting paid even though they no longer hold the rights to the work , or will whoever it is licensed to be required to pay the original author/artist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In response to multiple posts saying you can't unlicense the music, etc.
Here is another question:If it is licensed under terms where a certain percentage of sales goes to the record company in exchange for the song, or a certain percent of movie sales goes to the publisher of the book...Will the record company/publisher/whatever still be getting paid even though they no longer hold the rights to the work, or will whoever it is licensed to be required to pay the original author/artist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114716</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258384080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me [...] the words don't go together, man.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure they do, unfortunately most samples used in songs are straight lifts.  However, you can use samples creatively just as you can use any instrument creatively.</p><p>Take something like the Doctor Who theme as originally constructed by Delia Derbyshire.  The original recording was music concrete, made using open reel 2-track tape machines.  The bass line was (I believe) a recording of a metal lamp shade being hit which was then pitched and edited (via tape splicing) into a loop.  There are no synthesisers present on the original '63 version, it's all tape manipulation of recorded sounds.</p><p>That recording was (and remains) an example of "innovative sampling" and I don't see how anybody could dispute it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The term " innovative sampling " has always amazed me [ ... ] the words do n't go together , man.Sure they do , unfortunately most samples used in songs are straight lifts .
However , you can use samples creatively just as you can use any instrument creatively.Take something like the Doctor Who theme as originally constructed by Delia Derbyshire .
The original recording was music concrete , made using open reel 2-track tape machines .
The bass line was ( I believe ) a recording of a metal lamp shade being hit which was then pitched and edited ( via tape splicing ) into a loop .
There are no synthesisers present on the original '63 version , it 's all tape manipulation of recorded sounds.That recording was ( and remains ) an example of " innovative sampling " and I do n't see how anybody could dispute it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me [...] the words don't go together, man.Sure they do, unfortunately most samples used in songs are straight lifts.
However, you can use samples creatively just as you can use any instrument creatively.Take something like the Doctor Who theme as originally constructed by Delia Derbyshire.
The original recording was music concrete, made using open reel 2-track tape machines.
The bass line was (I believe) a recording of a metal lamp shade being hit which was then pitched and edited (via tape splicing) into a loop.
There are no synthesisers present on the original '63 version, it's all tape manipulation of recorded sounds.That recording was (and remains) an example of "innovative sampling" and I don't see how anybody could dispute it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114860</id>
	<title>Re:Its time to think about the future, not the pas</title>
	<author>beerbear</author>
	<datestamp>1258384980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hm couscous...tasty!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm couscous...tasty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm couscous...tasty!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115542</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258387920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article isn't clear on the specifics, but <a href="http://www.copylaw.com/new\_articles/copyterm.html" title="copylaw.com">this write-up</a> [copylaw.com] explains it well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is n't clear on the specifics , but this write-up [ copylaw.com ] explains it well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article isn't clear on the specifics, but this write-up [copylaw.com] explains it well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366</id>
	<title>the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>notgm</author>
	<datestamp>1258380960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will we see some more innovative sampling, legal enough to go mainstream again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will we see some more innovative sampling , legal enough to go mainstream again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will we see some more innovative sampling, legal enough to go mainstream again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116464</id>
	<title>Could someone please explain why this happened?</title>
	<author>Jiro</author>
	<datestamp>1258392240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, now I'm puzzled.  I was aware of the 56 year issue, because of the heirs of Jerry Siegel reclaiming the copyrights to Superboy and Superman.  The 56 year one has a clear justification: the copyright term was 56 years, but new laws added extra time to the copyright past that.  The creator originally thought he was just selling the copyright for 56 years, so the extra time that we added could just as well go to him as to the guys he sold it to.</p><p>But where's this 35 years for works after 1978 coming from?  I mean, it's there in the law, but it's not obvious where it's coming from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , now I 'm puzzled .
I was aware of the 56 year issue , because of the heirs of Jerry Siegel reclaiming the copyrights to Superboy and Superman .
The 56 year one has a clear justification : the copyright term was 56 years , but new laws added extra time to the copyright past that .
The creator originally thought he was just selling the copyright for 56 years , so the extra time that we added could just as well go to him as to the guys he sold it to.But where 's this 35 years for works after 1978 coming from ?
I mean , it 's there in the law , but it 's not obvious where it 's coming from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, now I'm puzzled.
I was aware of the 56 year issue, because of the heirs of Jerry Siegel reclaiming the copyrights to Superboy and Superman.
The 56 year one has a clear justification: the copyright term was 56 years, but new laws added extra time to the copyright past that.
The creator originally thought he was just selling the copyright for 56 years, so the extra time that we added could just as well go to him as to the guys he sold it to.But where's this 35 years for works after 1978 coming from?
I mean, it's there in the law, but it's not obvious where it's coming from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506</id>
	<title>Effect on games, etc.?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258382400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How with this affect any games, movies, etc. that currently have authorization to use the music?  Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How with this affect any games , movies , etc .
that currently have authorization to use the music ?
Could this be used to require guitar hero , etc .
to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music does n't want it in the game ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How with this affect any games, movies, etc.
that currently have authorization to use the music?
Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc.
to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114310</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258380480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First play</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First play</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First play</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114968</id>
	<title>Round of Applause</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1258385520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets have a round of applause for music. It's going to escape its captors , the music industry, when they die.<br>Musicians need an industry like fish need bicycles. Musicians will thrive on their own and actually make some money.<br>Don't get me wrong, the way we find music is going to change. Change is good. No one with any brains will copyright music unless it's GPL like.<br>Musicians can still get paid for commercial use or just toss it to the world. Revenues from touring will go to the band instead of thieving middlemen and the band can pay for whatever services they require,pocketing the rest.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Quality? Let's think about what happens to art when it's industrialized. You get mass produced paintings to hang in trailer houses, yet there are still talented artists selling their unique paintings individually worldwide. Here the industry is largely ignored because talented artists haven't been made to rely on an industry or face obscurity.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So, people of the world, keep on doin what you can to kill the music industry, soon something wonderful is going to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets have a round of applause for music .
It 's going to escape its captors , the music industry , when they die.Musicians need an industry like fish need bicycles .
Musicians will thrive on their own and actually make some money.Do n't get me wrong , the way we find music is going to change .
Change is good .
No one with any brains will copyright music unless it 's GPL like.Musicians can still get paid for commercial use or just toss it to the world .
Revenues from touring will go to the band instead of thieving middlemen and the band can pay for whatever services they require,pocketing the rest .
          Quality ?
Let 's think about what happens to art when it 's industrialized .
You get mass produced paintings to hang in trailer houses , yet there are still talented artists selling their unique paintings individually worldwide .
Here the industry is largely ignored because talented artists have n't been made to rely on an industry or face obscurity .
        So , people of the world , keep on doin what you can to kill the music industry , soon something wonderful is going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets have a round of applause for music.
It's going to escape its captors , the music industry, when they die.Musicians need an industry like fish need bicycles.
Musicians will thrive on their own and actually make some money.Don't get me wrong, the way we find music is going to change.
Change is good.
No one with any brains will copyright music unless it's GPL like.Musicians can still get paid for commercial use or just toss it to the world.
Revenues from touring will go to the band instead of thieving middlemen and the band can pay for whatever services they require,pocketing the rest.
          Quality?
Let's think about what happens to art when it's industrialized.
You get mass produced paintings to hang in trailer houses, yet there are still talented artists selling their unique paintings individually worldwide.
Here the industry is largely ignored because talented artists haven't been made to rely on an industry or face obscurity.
        So, people of the world, keep on doin what you can to kill the music industry, soon something wonderful is going to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115068</id>
	<title>Usage rights</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1258386000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, I'd that the usage rights would continue under whatever contract was made for them, similar to other situations where a company has sold a resource or rights to it, and then the ownership of the company itself changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , I 'd that the usage rights would continue under whatever contract was made for them , similar to other situations where a company has sold a resource or rights to it , and then the ownership of the company itself changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, I'd that the usage rights would continue under whatever contract was made for them, similar to other situations where a company has sold a resource or rights to it, and then the ownership of the company itself changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114392</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258381260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it.</p></div><p>Yes, that's true.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?</p></div><p>Because the copyrights are not expiring. I'd explain, but you could just <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/11/copyright-time-bomb-set-to-disrupt-music-publishing-industries/" title="wired.com">RTFA</a> [wired.com], which would explain it all. I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you. Don't be such a lazy ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it.Yes , that 's true.So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves ? Because the copyrights are not expiring .
I 'd explain , but you could just RTFA [ wired.com ] , which would explain it all .
I know this is slashdot , but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you .
Do n't be such a lazy ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it.Yes, that's true.So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?Because the copyrights are not expiring.
I'd explain, but you could just RTFA [wired.com], which would explain it all.
I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you.
Don't be such a lazy ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114490</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1258382340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the Latin plural of campus is campi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the Latin plural of campus is campi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the Latin plural of campus is campi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114912</id>
	<title>Houston... we have chickens...</title>
	<author>Sfing\_ter</author>
	<datestamp>1258385280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Houston? We have chickens, and it looks like they are coming home to roost.</p><p>Karma is such a fun toy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Houston ?
We have chickens , and it looks like they are coming home to roost.Karma is such a fun toy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Houston?
We have chickens, and it looks like they are coming home to roost.Karma is such a fun toy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116548</id>
	<title>Semantically obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258392660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wouldn't be a time bomb if it wasn't 'set to go off'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would n't be a time bomb if it was n't 'set to go off' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wouldn't be a time bomb if it wasn't 'set to go off'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114608</id>
	<title>all i needed to know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258383240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is the date this  will happen and when the music is from 1978</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is the date this will happen and when the music is from 1978</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is the date this  will happen and when the music is from 1978</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116128</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258390620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DaftPunk is entirely samples of music from the 80s but it seems pretty damn popular... Hell people sample daftpunk. Remashing and remixing can be a totally viable form of expression.<br> <br>Think of it this way, no matter what you do you'll be rubbing up against someone else's work even if you don't sample them. There are only so many musically pleasing chords and tunes. Repeating them is incredibly common. And that doesn't seem to bug anyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DaftPunk is entirely samples of music from the 80s but it seems pretty damn popular... Hell people sample daftpunk .
Remashing and remixing can be a totally viable form of expression .
Think of it this way , no matter what you do you 'll be rubbing up against someone else 's work even if you do n't sample them .
There are only so many musically pleasing chords and tunes .
Repeating them is incredibly common .
And that does n't seem to bug anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DaftPunk is entirely samples of music from the 80s but it seems pretty damn popular... Hell people sample daftpunk.
Remashing and remixing can be a totally viable form of expression.
Think of it this way, no matter what you do you'll be rubbing up against someone else's work even if you don't sample them.
There are only so many musically pleasing chords and tunes.
Repeating them is incredibly common.
And that doesn't seem to bug anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30117528</id>
	<title>musicians finally get their music back</title>
	<author>johnrpenner</author>
	<datestamp>1258396140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>musicians finally getting their music back -- its about frickin time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>musicians finally getting their music back -- its about frickin time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>musicians finally getting their music back -- its about frickin time...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30119158</id>
	<title>Sampling: another tool in the musician's toolbox</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1258401060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like any tool, it can be used well, it could be used badly.<br>Not (yet?) into 80s rap, but I do have some music that makes good use of samples.<br>K. Flay's "MASHed Potatoes" comes to mind, but it happens to use all (as far as I can tell) recent samples what wouldn't be affected by this</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like any tool , it can be used well , it could be used badly.Not ( yet ?
) into 80s rap , but I do have some music that makes good use of samples.K .
Flay 's " MASHed Potatoes " comes to mind , but it happens to use all ( as far as I can tell ) recent samples what would n't be affected by this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like any tool, it can be used well, it could be used badly.Not (yet?
) into 80s rap, but I do have some music that makes good use of samples.K.
Flay's "MASHed Potatoes" comes to mind, but it happens to use all (as far as I can tell) recent samples what wouldn't be affected by this</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115528</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>thue</author>
	<datestamp>1258387860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'd explain, but you could just RTFA [wired.com], which would explain it all. I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you. Don't be such a lazy ass.</i></p><p>In his defense, the summary did say that the copyrights were expiring. So this is a case of horribly wrong summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd explain , but you could just RTFA [ wired.com ] , which would explain it all .
I know this is slashdot , but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you .
Do n't be such a lazy ass.In his defense , the summary did say that the copyrights were expiring .
So this is a case of horribly wrong summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd explain, but you could just RTFA [wired.com], which would explain it all.
I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you.
Don't be such a lazy ass.In his defense, the summary did say that the copyrights were expiring.
So this is a case of horribly wrong summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114552</id>
	<title>hear is a novel idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258382760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>perhaps they should start producing good music again rather then autotune every pretty face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>perhaps they should start producing good music again rather then autotune every pretty face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perhaps they should start producing good music again rather then autotune every pretty face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115142</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258386240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This may be true, but it will still be better than what we have now. The Eagles will have much less bargaining power in ripping people off if the majority of the industry were to be fragmented in this way -- they will actually have to compete with other, less greedy bands. If all of the other bands are selling an album's worth of new songs on their website for $5, the Eagles will have trouble selling theirs for $20. When the distribution of the vast majority of the music nowadays is overseen by the same international cartel, there is little room for competition. As a side note, I feel that anyone who is an Eagles fan deserves to be bilked, whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio it feels like someone is raping my eardrums. I have a hard time trusting anyone who enjoys such ear rape.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be true , but it will still be better than what we have now .
The Eagles will have much less bargaining power in ripping people off if the majority of the industry were to be fragmented in this way -- they will actually have to compete with other , less greedy bands .
If all of the other bands are selling an album 's worth of new songs on their website for $ 5 , the Eagles will have trouble selling theirs for $ 20 .
When the distribution of the vast majority of the music nowadays is overseen by the same international cartel , there is little room for competition .
As a side note , I feel that anyone who is an Eagles fan deserves to be bilked , whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio it feels like someone is raping my eardrums .
I have a hard time trusting anyone who enjoys such ear rape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be true, but it will still be better than what we have now.
The Eagles will have much less bargaining power in ripping people off if the majority of the industry were to be fragmented in this way -- they will actually have to compete with other, less greedy bands.
If all of the other bands are selling an album's worth of new songs on their website for $5, the Eagles will have trouble selling theirs for $20.
When the distribution of the vast majority of the music nowadays is overseen by the same international cartel, there is little room for competition.
As a side note, I feel that anyone who is an Eagles fan deserves to be bilked, whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio it feels like someone is raping my eardrums.
I have a hard time trusting anyone who enjoys such ear rape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>pigphish</author>
	<datestamp>1258384020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is bad because the Eagles may be even more greedy than the record companies. They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour and probably wouldn't mind when selling their wares.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is bad because the Eagles may be even more greedy than the record companies .
They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour and probably would n't mind when selling their wares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is bad because the Eagles may be even more greedy than the record companies.
They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour and probably wouldn't mind when selling their wares.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115946</id>
	<title>Re:Effect on games, etc.?</title>
	<author>Kirijini</author>
	<datestamp>1258389840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions...?</p></div><p>This is a great question.</p><p>Here's the law (Title 17, Section 203):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(a) Conditions for Termination.&mdash;In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:<br>---blah blah blah---<br>(b) Effect of Termination.&mdash;Upon the effective date of termination, all rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grants revert to the author, authors... etc etc... but with the following limitations:<br>(1) A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.<br>---blah blah blah (read it yourself if you want to see the rest)---</p></div><p>The key question would be - is Guitar Hero a derivative work?</p><p>Section 101 defines derivative work:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A &ldquo;derivative work&rdquo; is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a &ldquo;derivative work&rdquo;.</p></div><p>I don't know.  Seems like it could go either way.  Certainly, the early Guitar Heroes that used covered versions of the song wouldn't be affected - those are clearly derivative works of the original song.  But what about Guitar Heroes that use the original recordings?  Maybe, since whether the whole song plays is dependent on what the player does, it's a derivative work.  It's been "adapted," arguably... but do those transformations "as a whole, represent an original work of authorship"?  probably not.</p><p>I would actually lean towards the answer: Guitar Hero is vulnerable to having its license terminated.  I don't think the Eagles could do that until 35 years after the contract was signed by their publisher, though.  As others have indicated, transfer of ownership of a copyright wouldn't affect existing licenses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this be used to require guitar hero , etc .
to stop distribution of current versions... ? This is a great question.Here 's the law ( Title 17 , Section 203 ) : ( a ) Conditions for Termination.    In the case of any work other than a work made for hire , the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright , executed by the author on or after January 1 , 1978 , otherwise than by will , is subject to termination under the following conditions : ---blah blah blah--- ( b ) Effect of Termination.    Upon the effective date of termination , all rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grants revert to the author , authors... etc etc... but with the following limitations : ( 1 ) A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination , but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.---blah blah blah ( read it yourself if you want to see the rest ) ---The key question would be - is Guitar Hero a derivative work ? Section 101 defines derivative work : A    derivative work    is a work based upon one or more preexisting works , such as a translation , musical arrangement , dramatization , fictionalization , motion picture version , sound recording , art reproduction , abridgment , condensation , or any other form in which a work may be recast , transformed , or adapted .
A work consisting of editorial revisions , annotations , elaborations , or other modifications , which , as a whole , represent an original work of authorship , is a    derivative work    .I do n't know .
Seems like it could go either way .
Certainly , the early Guitar Heroes that used covered versions of the song would n't be affected - those are clearly derivative works of the original song .
But what about Guitar Heroes that use the original recordings ?
Maybe , since whether the whole song plays is dependent on what the player does , it 's a derivative work .
It 's been " adapted , " arguably... but do those transformations " as a whole , represent an original work of authorship " ?
probably not.I would actually lean towards the answer : Guitar Hero is vulnerable to having its license terminated .
I do n't think the Eagles could do that until 35 years after the contract was signed by their publisher , though .
As others have indicated , transfer of ownership of a copyright would n't affect existing licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc.
to stop distribution of current versions...?This is a great question.Here's the law (Title 17, Section 203):(a) Conditions for Termination.—In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:---blah blah blah---(b) Effect of Termination.—Upon the effective date of termination, all rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grants revert to the author, authors... etc etc... but with the following limitations:(1) A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.---blah blah blah (read it yourself if you want to see the rest)---The key question would be - is Guitar Hero a derivative work?Section 101 defines derivative work:A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.
A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.I don't know.
Seems like it could go either way.
Certainly, the early Guitar Heroes that used covered versions of the song wouldn't be affected - those are clearly derivative works of the original song.
But what about Guitar Heroes that use the original recordings?
Maybe, since whether the whole song plays is dependent on what the player does, it's a derivative work.
It's been "adapted," arguably... but do those transformations "as a whole, represent an original work of authorship"?
probably not.I would actually lean towards the answer: Guitar Hero is vulnerable to having its license terminated.
I don't think the Eagles could do that until 35 years after the contract was signed by their publisher, though.
As others have indicated, transfer of ownership of a copyright wouldn't affect existing licenses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364</id>
	<title>Someone please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258380960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it. For example there is some ruckus in the evolution-creationism skirmishes because Darwin's <i>The origin of the species</i>  is now in the public domain and some character known as the Banana Boy is planning to distribute "annotated" copies of that book in college campuses ( (plural)alumnus= alumni, (plural)campus= campi? no?). So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it .
For example there is some ruckus in the evolution-creationism skirmishes because Darwin 's The origin of the species is now in the public domain and some character known as the Banana Boy is planning to distribute " annotated " copies of that book in college campuses ( ( plural ) alumnus = alumni , ( plural ) campus = campi ?
no ? ) . So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it.
For example there is some ruckus in the evolution-creationism skirmishes because Darwin's The origin of the species  is now in the public domain and some character known as the Banana Boy is planning to distribute "annotated" copies of that book in college campuses ( (plural)alumnus= alumni, (plural)campus= campi?
no?). So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115208</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting times</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1258386480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't say I like the Eagles much</p></div></blockquote><p>So you don't like them and like metal?<br>What we need then is something like the Eagles of Death Metal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't say I like the Eagles muchSo you do n't like them and like metal ? What we need then is something like the Eagles of Death Metal : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't say I like the Eagles muchSo you don't like them and like metal?What we need then is something like the Eagles of Death Metal :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115676</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1258388460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The artists and songwriters are the only ones getting paid for music on the radio. The stations pay ASCAP/BMI but pay nothing to the labels. In fact the labels often pay the stations to play their music (payola), but that's more TOP40 then oldies/classic rock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The artists and songwriters are the only ones getting paid for music on the radio .
The stations pay ASCAP/BMI but pay nothing to the labels .
In fact the labels often pay the stations to play their music ( payola ) , but that 's more TOP40 then oldies/classic rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The artists and songwriters are the only ones getting paid for music on the radio.
The stations pay ASCAP/BMI but pay nothing to the labels.
In fact the labels often pay the stations to play their music (payola), but that's more TOP40 then oldies/classic rock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116730</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1258393440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after.</p></div><p>If you're going to tie copyright to the death of the artist, please make it a couple of decades after the artist's death, otherwise it would be a strong incentive for exploiting an artist's death, or even for murder.</p><p>I'll gladly pay for legal ways to watch TV shows online. I don't want to wait 2 years for it to be released on DVD, I don't want to drive to the video store to get a scratched piece of plastic covered in suspicious stains and I don't want to have to return said piece of plastic. For this convenience, I'm even willing to pay as much as for a DVD rental despite the vastly lower overhead costs.</p><p>Alas, the studios will not allow services like that outside the US, Canada and sometimes the UK.</p><p>Licensing content by region doesn't make sense on the internet. License it by number of users instead, perhaps?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection , but really the moment the last of them is dead , it should go to the public pretty soon after.If you 're going to tie copyright to the death of the artist , please make it a couple of decades after the artist 's death , otherwise it would be a strong incentive for exploiting an artist 's death , or even for murder.I 'll gladly pay for legal ways to watch TV shows online .
I do n't want to wait 2 years for it to be released on DVD , I do n't want to drive to the video store to get a scratched piece of plastic covered in suspicious stains and I do n't want to have to return said piece of plastic .
For this convenience , I 'm even willing to pay as much as for a DVD rental despite the vastly lower overhead costs.Alas , the studios will not allow services like that outside the US , Canada and sometimes the UK.Licensing content by region does n't make sense on the internet .
License it by number of users instead , perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after.If you're going to tie copyright to the death of the artist, please make it a couple of decades after the artist's death, otherwise it would be a strong incentive for exploiting an artist's death, or even for murder.I'll gladly pay for legal ways to watch TV shows online.
I don't want to wait 2 years for it to be released on DVD, I don't want to drive to the video store to get a scratched piece of plastic covered in suspicious stains and I don't want to have to return said piece of plastic.
For this convenience, I'm even willing to pay as much as for a DVD rental despite the vastly lower overhead costs.Alas, the studios will not allow services like that outside the US, Canada and sometimes the UK.Licensing content by region doesn't make sense on the internet.
License it by number of users instead, perhaps?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115508</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258387740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after.</p></div><p>...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music t</p></div><p>...
No, I'd say it sounds like you wouldn't care about any copyright protection they have, one way or the other...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection , but really the moment the last of them is dead , it should go to the public pretty soon after....All us " pirates " that refuse to pay for music t.. . No , I 'd say it sounds like you would n't care about any copyright protection they have , one way or the other.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after....All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music t...
No, I'd say it sounds like you wouldn't care about any copyright protection they have, one way or the other...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114430</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1258381740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Basically the provision was put into the legislation to give the Congresspeople political cover when they extended copyright terms <i>again</i>.  This way they pretend to care about the artists (who don't give them as much money as the labels and producers), and because they do that the artists get something out of it.  There has already been some litigation on the issue, particularly when the original copyright holder died and there are multiple family members involved in trying to get the revoked rights, IIRC.

From the publisher/producer side, they don't think about it as political cover because all that matters to them is that they'll lose the rights unless they renegotiate--and if the artist was successful, the copyright holder is often now in a position to get a much better deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically the provision was put into the legislation to give the Congresspeople political cover when they extended copyright terms again .
This way they pretend to care about the artists ( who do n't give them as much money as the labels and producers ) , and because they do that the artists get something out of it .
There has already been some litigation on the issue , particularly when the original copyright holder died and there are multiple family members involved in trying to get the revoked rights , IIRC .
From the publisher/producer side , they do n't think about it as political cover because all that matters to them is that they 'll lose the rights unless they renegotiate--and if the artist was successful , the copyright holder is often now in a position to get a much better deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically the provision was put into the legislation to give the Congresspeople political cover when they extended copyright terms again.
This way they pretend to care about the artists (who don't give them as much money as the labels and producers), and because they do that the artists get something out of it.
There has already been some litigation on the issue, particularly when the original copyright holder died and there are multiple family members involved in trying to get the revoked rights, IIRC.
From the publisher/producer side, they don't think about it as political cover because all that matters to them is that they'll lose the rights unless they renegotiate--and if the artist was successful, the copyright holder is often now in a position to get a much better deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115066</id>
	<title>They're not RIAA</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1258385940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they overprice their wares, their market will find substitutes, either legal or illegal, elsewhere. And if they stupidly decide that they want to start suing file sharers, they are in a much worse position than RIAA, since RIAA saves tons of money by using a single contracted "media investigator", and by sharing expert witnesses and other info between all of their legal cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they overprice their wares , their market will find substitutes , either legal or illegal , elsewhere .
And if they stupidly decide that they want to start suing file sharers , they are in a much worse position than RIAA , since RIAA saves tons of money by using a single contracted " media investigator " , and by sharing expert witnesses and other info between all of their legal cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they overprice their wares, their market will find substitutes, either legal or illegal, elsewhere.
And if they stupidly decide that they want to start suing file sharers, they are in a much worse position than RIAA, since RIAA saves tons of money by using a single contracted "media investigator", and by sharing expert witnesses and other info between all of their legal cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30126962</id>
	<title>huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio"</p><p>That song is considered by many people to be the greatest pop song of all time. If you really understand the writing and arrangement on the song, you'd understand why.</p><p>I'll bet you're a Lady Gaga fan, aren't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio " That song is considered by many people to be the greatest pop song of all time .
If you really understand the writing and arrangement on the song , you 'd understand why.I 'll bet you 're a Lady Gaga fan , are n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio"That song is considered by many people to be the greatest pop song of all time.
If you really understand the writing and arrangement on the song, you'd understand why.I'll bet you're a Lady Gaga fan, aren't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115034</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258385880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth: pigphish speaks of it!</p><p>Why can I go see a local band at a bar for $5 cover and have just as good of a time if not better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth : pigphish speaks of it ! Why can I go see a local band at a bar for $ 5 cover and have just as good of a time if not better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth: pigphish speaks of it!Why can I go see a local band at a bar for $5 cover and have just as good of a time if not better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115264</id>
	<title>In the future this will be known as...</title>
	<author>ultral0rd</author>
	<datestamp>1258386720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the future bands will refer to this as the "old musicians retirement fund"</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future bands will refer to this as the " old musicians retirement fund "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future bands will refer to this as the "old musicians retirement fund"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115278</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1258386720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incidentally, their concerts are probably under-priced, not over-priced.  Long line-ups, same-day sellouts, and scalpers are all symptoms that the seller is not charging as much as the market will bear for their tickets. You might not think the tickets, merch, etc are worth the prices they charge, but clearly other fans do, and there's no reason why the Eagles should sell you cheaper stuff when other people will happily pay more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incidentally , their concerts are probably under-priced , not over-priced .
Long line-ups , same-day sellouts , and scalpers are all symptoms that the seller is not charging as much as the market will bear for their tickets .
You might not think the tickets , merch , etc are worth the prices they charge , but clearly other fans do , and there 's no reason why the Eagles should sell you cheaper stuff when other people will happily pay more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incidentally, their concerts are probably under-priced, not over-priced.
Long line-ups, same-day sellouts, and scalpers are all symptoms that the seller is not charging as much as the market will bear for their tickets.
You might not think the tickets, merch, etc are worth the prices they charge, but clearly other fans do, and there's no reason why the Eagles should sell you cheaper stuff when other people will happily pay more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115746</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1258388760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you heard <a href="http://thru-you.com/" title="thru-you.com">ThruYOU</a> [thru-you.com]? That might change your mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you heard ThruYOU [ thru-you.com ] ?
That might change your mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you heard ThruYOU [thru-you.com]?
That might change your mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114672</id>
	<title>"GIVE ME MY MONEY"</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1258383720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>arch liberals Don Henley and Babs scream "GIVE ME MY MONEY...."</p><p>That's too funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>arch liberals Don Henley and Babs scream " GIVE ME MY MONEY.... " That 's too funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arch liberals Don Henley and Babs scream "GIVE ME MY MONEY...."That's too funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114550</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1258382760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>some character known as the Banana Boy is planning to distribute "annotated" copies of that book in college campuses</p></div><p>
Maybe some people don't believe in evolution because it hasn't happened to them yet?  If I seem some one who looks like a neanderthal tossing
around poop and copies of a book they dont' understand, I'll steer clear of them.  (I would also keep away from someone with just the poop.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>some character known as the Banana Boy is planning to distribute " annotated " copies of that book in college campuses Maybe some people do n't believe in evolution because it has n't happened to them yet ?
If I seem some one who looks like a neanderthal tossing around poop and copies of a book they dont ' understand , I 'll steer clear of them .
( I would also keep away from someone with just the poop .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some character known as the Banana Boy is planning to distribute "annotated" copies of that book in college campuses
Maybe some people don't believe in evolution because it hasn't happened to them yet?
If I seem some one who looks like a neanderthal tossing
around poop and copies of a book they dont' understand, I'll steer clear of them.
(I would also keep away from someone with just the poop.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114686</id>
	<title>I love this part of the article...</title>
	<author>rrossman2</author>
	<datestamp>1258383840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The second option is to re-record sound recordings in order to create new sound recording copyrights, which would reset the countdown clock at 35 years for copyright grant termination. Eveline characterized the labels&rsquo; conversations with creators going something like, &ldquo;Okay, you have the old mono masters if you want &mdash; but these digital remasters are ours.&rdquo;
<br> <br>
Labels already file new copyrights for remasters. For example, Sony Music filed a new copyright for the remastered version of Ben Folds Five&rsquo;s Whatever and Ever Amen album, and when Omega Record Group remastered a 1991 Christmas recording, the basis of its new copyright claim was &ldquo;New Matter: sound recording remixed and remastered to fully utilize the sonic potential of the compact disc medium.&rdquo;<br> <br>
You know damn well if you tried this yourself, the RIAA would be all over your ass</htmltext>
<tokenext>The second option is to re-record sound recordings in order to create new sound recording copyrights , which would reset the countdown clock at 35 years for copyright grant termination .
Eveline characterized the labels    conversations with creators going something like ,    Okay , you have the old mono masters if you want    but these digital remasters are ours.    Labels already file new copyrights for remasters .
For example , Sony Music filed a new copyright for the remastered version of Ben Folds Five    s Whatever and Ever Amen album , and when Omega Record Group remastered a 1991 Christmas recording , the basis of its new copyright claim was    New Matter : sound recording remixed and remastered to fully utilize the sonic potential of the compact disc medium.    You know damn well if you tried this yourself , the RIAA would be all over your ass</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second option is to re-record sound recordings in order to create new sound recording copyrights, which would reset the countdown clock at 35 years for copyright grant termination.
Eveline characterized the labels’ conversations with creators going something like, “Okay, you have the old mono masters if you want — but these digital remasters are ours.”
 
Labels already file new copyrights for remasters.
For example, Sony Music filed a new copyright for the remastered version of Ben Folds Five’s Whatever and Ever Amen album, and when Omega Record Group remastered a 1991 Christmas recording, the basis of its new copyright claim was “New Matter: sound recording remixed and remastered to fully utilize the sonic potential of the compact disc medium.” 
You know damn well if you tried this yourself, the RIAA would be all over your ass</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>lordmetroid</author>
	<datestamp>1258380780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not see how this is bad, the publishers obviously hasn't been innovating and now fear their own demise by their own doing. As seen by the trends of income, artists themselves are the winners and publishers has been made obsolete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not see how this is bad , the publishers obviously has n't been innovating and now fear their own demise by their own doing .
As seen by the trends of income , artists themselves are the winners and publishers has been made obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not see how this is bad, the publishers obviously hasn't been innovating and now fear their own demise by their own doing.
As seen by the trends of income, artists themselves are the winners and publishers has been made obsolete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114386</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258381200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not expiration of copyright, it's a provision in copyright law that allows creators who have assigned their work to a publisher (or label, etc.) to take it back after a set period of time. It was designed to give creators some leverage against publishers - i.e., they wouldn't have to assign their work forever just to get it published. From the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not expiration of copyright , it 's a provision in copyright law that allows creators who have assigned their work to a publisher ( or label , etc .
) to take it back after a set period of time .
It was designed to give creators some leverage against publishers - i.e. , they would n't have to assign their work forever just to get it published .
From the article : The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works .
If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 ( Section 304 ) , they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later .
If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 ( Section 203 ) , they can terminate that grant after 35 years .
Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time , record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013 , 1979 in 2014 , and so on .
For 1953-and-earlier music , grants can already be terminated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not expiration of copyright, it's a provision in copyright law that allows creators who have assigned their work to a publisher (or label, etc.
) to take it back after a set period of time.
It was designed to give creators some leverage against publishers - i.e., they wouldn't have to assign their work forever just to get it published.
From the article:The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works.
If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later.
If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years.
Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on.
For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118700</id>
	<title>It's called Rights Reversion, M**F***ers!</title>
	<author>Dragoness Eclectic</author>
	<datestamp>1258399680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh noes, the records industry might have to let the ORIGINAL CREATORS have the rights to THEIR OWN WORK again! The sky is falling, whatever shall we do?  I know, let's whine to Congress that we'll die if we can't continue ripping off musicians for all eternity!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm off</p><p>So musicians are finally getting what every sensible writer has written into his contract from the get-go--rights revert to the author after X years, or Y years out-of-print? Dang, I can see where music company accountants might be feeling the pain... they might actually have to re-negotiate to pay the creators what their copyrights are worth... and now these guys are big enough they can hire agents and lawyers that negotiate less one-sided contracts.</p><p>I feel so bad for the music companies, I really do. That's why I'm laughing so hard at this. Geez, did Wired really need to publish a one-sided article obviously written by an RIAA lawyer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes , the records industry might have to let the ORIGINAL CREATORS have the rights to THEIR OWN WORK again !
The sky is falling , whatever shall we do ?
I know , let 's whine to Congress that we 'll die if we ca n't continue ripping off musicians for all eternity !
/sarcasm offSo musicians are finally getting what every sensible writer has written into his contract from the get-go--rights revert to the author after X years , or Y years out-of-print ?
Dang , I can see where music company accountants might be feeling the pain... they might actually have to re-negotiate to pay the creators what their copyrights are worth... and now these guys are big enough they can hire agents and lawyers that negotiate less one-sided contracts.I feel so bad for the music companies , I really do .
That 's why I 'm laughing so hard at this .
Geez , did Wired really need to publish a one-sided article obviously written by an RIAA lawyer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes, the records industry might have to let the ORIGINAL CREATORS have the rights to THEIR OWN WORK again!
The sky is falling, whatever shall we do?
I know, let's whine to Congress that we'll die if we can't continue ripping off musicians for all eternity!
/sarcasm offSo musicians are finally getting what every sensible writer has written into his contract from the get-go--rights revert to the author after X years, or Y years out-of-print?
Dang, I can see where music company accountants might be feeling the pain... they might actually have to re-negotiate to pay the creators what their copyrights are worth... and now these guys are big enough they can hire agents and lawyers that negotiate less one-sided contracts.I feel so bad for the music companies, I really do.
That's why I'm laughing so hard at this.
Geez, did Wired really need to publish a one-sided article obviously written by an RIAA lawyer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30123698</id>
	<title>Interesting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258374960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So...we don't need publishers to CREATE good music...and we don't need publishers to DISTRIBUTE good music...and we don't need publishers to be our music vendors once the music exists...<br>So...what do we need the music industry for again?  Besides backing tracks to Ford commercials?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So...we do n't need publishers to CREATE good music...and we do n't need publishers to DISTRIBUTE good music...and we do n't need publishers to be our music vendors once the music exists...So...what do we need the music industry for again ?
Besides backing tracks to Ford commercials ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...we don't need publishers to CREATE good music...and we don't need publishers to DISTRIBUTE good music...and we don't need publishers to be our music vendors once the music exists...So...what do we need the music industry for again?
Besides backing tracks to Ford commercials?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115726</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1258388700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, how about the fact that instead these works should be in the public domain as their continued copyright does nothing to promote science and the useful arts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , how about the fact that instead these works should be in the public domain as their continued copyright does nothing to promote science and the useful arts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, how about the fact that instead these works should be in the public domain as their continued copyright does nothing to promote science and the useful arts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114362</id>
	<title>Will there be a kaboom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258380900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom, you know.</p><p>On another note, isn't this trading 1 stupidity for another?  I mean, I like Hotel California and all, but the copyright should have expired by now.  Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom , you know.On another note , is n't this trading 1 stupidity for another ?
I mean , I like Hotel California and all , but the copyright should have expired by now .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom, you know.On another note, isn't this trading 1 stupidity for another?
I mean, I like Hotel California and all, but the copyright should have expired by now.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114512</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>mr\_gorkajuice</author>
	<datestamp>1258382520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely not at all bad. But interesting nevertheless, so something to see here indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely not at all bad .
But interesting nevertheless , so something to see here indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely not at all bad.
But interesting nevertheless, so something to see here indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114452</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1258381920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What was Written can be Unwritten.  Watch for a rider being slipped through on the Protecting Freedom, Goodness and Innocent Children Act 2010.  Congress has gotten better at this since the last time they got caught boning creatives over Work For Hire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was Written can be Unwritten .
Watch for a rider being slipped through on the Protecting Freedom , Goodness and Innocent Children Act 2010 .
Congress has gotten better at this since the last time they got caught boning creatives over Work For Hire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was Written can be Unwritten.
Watch for a rider being slipped through on the Protecting Freedom, Goodness and Innocent Children Act 2010.
Congress has gotten better at this since the last time they got caught boning creatives over Work For Hire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114498</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258382400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, we'll amend the secret ACTA treaty or a new DMCA law to fix this loophole. We'll probably put it as a rider to a 'save the children' act or 'don't kill puppies' law. After all, you're not a stone-cold puppy-killing, child-raping pervert are you?</p><p>Don't worry writing about it to me, I can't read it, I'll be at a Palm Island resort courtesy of Sony/BMG. I'm taking a private jet provided to me by some family with the last name Warner, you know so I can catch up on verifying the funds I got to run for office next year. I really don't know where all those bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donations keep coming from.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Your state representative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , we 'll amend the secret ACTA treaty or a new DMCA law to fix this loophole .
We 'll probably put it as a rider to a 'save the children ' act or 'do n't kill puppies ' law .
After all , you 're not a stone-cold puppy-killing , child-raping pervert are you ? Do n't worry writing about it to me , I ca n't read it , I 'll be at a Palm Island resort courtesy of Sony/BMG .
I 'm taking a private jet provided to me by some family with the last name Warner , you know so I can catch up on verifying the funds I got to run for office next year .
I really do n't know where all those bribes ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H donations keep coming from.Sincerely,Your state representative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, we'll amend the secret ACTA treaty or a new DMCA law to fix this loophole.
We'll probably put it as a rider to a 'save the children' act or 'don't kill puppies' law.
After all, you're not a stone-cold puppy-killing, child-raping pervert are you?Don't worry writing about it to me, I can't read it, I'll be at a Palm Island resort courtesy of Sony/BMG.
I'm taking a private jet provided to me by some family with the last name Warner, you know so I can catch up on verifying the funds I got to run for office next year.
I really don't know where all those bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donations keep coming from.Sincerely,Your state representative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114502</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258382400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Babu and a friend are sitting at a table in an outdoor cafe in Pakistan).</p><p>Babu: So his friend got the mail but she did not give it to him. And then he came to visit me. Said the lawyer was called to help, he said the wheels were<br>in motion, but there was no motion. There was nothing. And so they sent me back here.</p><p>Babu's Friend: This is a terrible story, Babu. What are you going to do?</p><p>Babu: I'm going to save up every rupee. Someday, I will get back to America, and when I do I will exact vengeance on this man. I cannot forget him. He haunts me. He is a very bad man. He is a very very bad man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Babu and a friend are sitting at a table in an outdoor cafe in Pakistan ) .Babu : So his friend got the mail but she did not give it to him .
And then he came to visit me .
Said the lawyer was called to help , he said the wheels werein motion , but there was no motion .
There was nothing .
And so they sent me back here.Babu 's Friend : This is a terrible story , Babu .
What are you going to do ? Babu : I 'm going to save up every rupee .
Someday , I will get back to America , and when I do I will exact vengeance on this man .
I can not forget him .
He haunts me .
He is a very bad man .
He is a very very bad man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Babu and a friend are sitting at a table in an outdoor cafe in Pakistan).Babu: So his friend got the mail but she did not give it to him.
And then he came to visit me.
Said the lawyer was called to help, he said the wheels werein motion, but there was no motion.
There was nothing.
And so they sent me back here.Babu's Friend: This is a terrible story, Babu.
What are you going to do?Babu: I'm going to save up every rupee.
Someday, I will get back to America, and when I do I will exact vengeance on this man.
I cannot forget him.
He haunts me.
He is a very bad man.
He is a very very bad man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30117150</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1258394940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post is as abso-fucking-lutely stupid as saying 'I dislike like your post because you used no innovative new words, you flockenshnarpet'.</p><p>If I like the beat from a song but loathe the vocals, and if I find a song that samples that beat in a way I find pleasant, then has that product not been improved?</p><p>If at one time in the past the new song did not exist and I had no way to hear it, yet at current moment it does exist to bring me pleasure when the first could not, then hasn't something original been created?</p><p>How deep do I have to bury my head in the sand until I'm convinced that the artist who created the version I actually like didn't perform me any valuable service?</p><p>How big of a boner do I need to get upon hearing the word 'original' in order to drive me to defend something's originality as fiercely as you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is as abso-fucking-lutely stupid as saying 'I dislike like your post because you used no innovative new words , you flockenshnarpet'.If I like the beat from a song but loathe the vocals , and if I find a song that samples that beat in a way I find pleasant , then has that product not been improved ? If at one time in the past the new song did not exist and I had no way to hear it , yet at current moment it does exist to bring me pleasure when the first could not , then has n't something original been created ? How deep do I have to bury my head in the sand until I 'm convinced that the artist who created the version I actually like did n't perform me any valuable service ? How big of a boner do I need to get upon hearing the word 'original ' in order to drive me to defend something 's originality as fiercely as you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post is as abso-fucking-lutely stupid as saying 'I dislike like your post because you used no innovative new words, you flockenshnarpet'.If I like the beat from a song but loathe the vocals, and if I find a song that samples that beat in a way I find pleasant, then has that product not been improved?If at one time in the past the new song did not exist and I had no way to hear it, yet at current moment it does exist to bring me pleasure when the first could not, then hasn't something original been created?How deep do I have to bury my head in the sand until I'm convinced that the artist who created the version I actually like didn't perform me any valuable service?How big of a boner do I need to get upon hearing the word 'original' in order to drive me to defend something's originality as fiercely as you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115064</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258385940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh what the heck.  Here's another example of "sampling".  I'm not going to try to claim it's "innovative" but it sure is funny:</p><p>BALTIMORE'S IN THE HOUSE!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  Sisqo - Thong Song<br>Original version - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-y5b9Blm8" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-y5b9Blm8</a> [youtube.com]<br>MTV clean version - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP3bZZLGBlo" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP3bZZLGBlo</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh what the heck .
Here 's another example of " sampling " .
I 'm not going to try to claim it 's " innovative " but it sure is funny : BALTIMORE 'S IN THE HOUSE !
; - ) Sisqo - Thong SongOriginal version - http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 3o-y5b9Blm8 [ youtube.com ] MTV clean version - http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = OP3bZZLGBlo [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh what the heck.
Here's another example of "sampling".
I'm not going to try to claim it's "innovative" but it sure is funny:BALTIMORE'S IN THE HOUSE!
;-)  Sisqo - Thong SongOriginal version - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-y5b9Blm8 [youtube.com]MTV clean version - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP3bZZLGBlo [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30126434</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1258400400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection...</i></p><p>Right now, the artists (as opposed to the songwriters) have no copyright protection at all. The only area in which there is any collection of money to be doled out to artists is webcasting, and the record label takes half of it by default.</p><p>These are the sound recording copyrights. For the most part, the artists have never owned any of the recordings, so this isn't a continuation of anything, it's a new deal, and it is a HUGE change because 60s and 70s rock is still a catalog mainstay for the labels and it's <b>all</b> eligible to be taken away in the first year this goes into effect.</p><p>The status quo is the record label keeping 85\% of all the income and the artist "earns" the other 15 percent, which is applied to their account at the label, which is always in the red because marketing and promotion is so, so, expensive, you know.</p><p>What we've had so far is contractural rape and pillaging for 100 years. This may signal the end of it, especially if enough artists reclaim their work.</p><p>New plan -- The artist gets 100\% of the income and doesn't have to go through the label to get it. And really, how much do you have to spend to promote a 35-year-old album?</p><p>Some long-suppressed albums finally appear, too. Another benefit is that each artist who reclaims their work will be reducing the clout of the RIAA, as it will no longer represent the interests of the new owners of the recordings. And neither will the new laws the RIAA is working so fervently to have put together.</p><p>Best -- This is going to be a literal lifesaver for some acts, which the labels have left to starve as they approach old age, having already cheated them as much and as often as possible and are probably <b>still</b> sitting on a pile of cash that should have been paid out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection...Right now , the artists ( as opposed to the songwriters ) have no copyright protection at all .
The only area in which there is any collection of money to be doled out to artists is webcasting , and the record label takes half of it by default.These are the sound recording copyrights .
For the most part , the artists have never owned any of the recordings , so this is n't a continuation of anything , it 's a new deal , and it is a HUGE change because 60s and 70s rock is still a catalog mainstay for the labels and it 's all eligible to be taken away in the first year this goes into effect.The status quo is the record label keeping 85 \ % of all the income and the artist " earns " the other 15 percent , which is applied to their account at the label , which is always in the red because marketing and promotion is so , so , expensive , you know.What we 've had so far is contractural rape and pillaging for 100 years .
This may signal the end of it , especially if enough artists reclaim their work.New plan -- The artist gets 100 \ % of the income and does n't have to go through the label to get it .
And really , how much do you have to spend to promote a 35-year-old album ? Some long-suppressed albums finally appear , too .
Another benefit is that each artist who reclaims their work will be reducing the clout of the RIAA , as it will no longer represent the interests of the new owners of the recordings .
And neither will the new laws the RIAA is working so fervently to have put together.Best -- This is going to be a literal lifesaver for some acts , which the labels have left to starve as they approach old age , having already cheated them as much and as often as possible and are probably still sitting on a pile of cash that should have been paid out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection...Right now, the artists (as opposed to the songwriters) have no copyright protection at all.
The only area in which there is any collection of money to be doled out to artists is webcasting, and the record label takes half of it by default.These are the sound recording copyrights.
For the most part, the artists have never owned any of the recordings, so this isn't a continuation of anything, it's a new deal, and it is a HUGE change because 60s and 70s rock is still a catalog mainstay for the labels and it's all eligible to be taken away in the first year this goes into effect.The status quo is the record label keeping 85\% of all the income and the artist "earns" the other 15 percent, which is applied to their account at the label, which is always in the red because marketing and promotion is so, so, expensive, you know.What we've had so far is contractural rape and pillaging for 100 years.
This may signal the end of it, especially if enough artists reclaim their work.New plan -- The artist gets 100\% of the income and doesn't have to go through the label to get it.
And really, how much do you have to spend to promote a 35-year-old album?Some long-suppressed albums finally appear, too.
Another benefit is that each artist who reclaims their work will be reducing the clout of the RIAA, as it will no longer represent the interests of the new owners of the recordings.
And neither will the new laws the RIAA is working so fervently to have put together.Best -- This is going to be a literal lifesaver for some acts, which the labels have left to starve as they approach old age, having already cheated them as much and as often as possible and are probably still sitting on a pile of cash that should have been paid out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114740</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258384260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an example of innovative sampling:    <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQa60u1zPdE" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQa60u1zPdE</a> [youtube.com]         In my opinion this rap song is better than the original song.  Alternatively you could think of the two songs complementing each other (one is the woman complaining; the other is the man apologizing).</p><p>original<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQa60u1zPdE" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQa60u1zPdE</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Other favorite sampling songs:<br>Will Smith - Wild Wild West <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeyhtlJp5A" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeyhtlJp5A</a> [youtube.com]<br>Naughty by Nature - O.P.P. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJgFU3U4X\_Y" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJgFU3U4X\_Y</a> [youtube.com]<br>Rihanna - SOS <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeyhtlJp5A" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeyhtlJp5A</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an example of innovative sampling : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = rQa60u1zPdE [ youtube.com ] In my opinion this rap song is better than the original song .
Alternatively you could think of the two songs complementing each other ( one is the woman complaining ; the other is the man apologizing ) .originalhttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = rQa60u1zPdE [ youtube.com ] Other favorite sampling songs : Will Smith - Wild Wild West http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 4eeyhtlJp5A [ youtube.com ] Naughty by Nature - O.P.P .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = mJgFU3U4X \ _Y [ youtube.com ] Rihanna - SOS http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 4eeyhtlJp5A [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an example of innovative sampling:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQa60u1zPdE [youtube.com]         In my opinion this rap song is better than the original song.
Alternatively you could think of the two songs complementing each other (one is the woman complaining; the other is the man apologizing).originalhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQa60u1zPdE [youtube.com]Other favorite sampling songs:Will Smith - Wild Wild West http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeyhtlJp5A [youtube.com]Naughty by Nature - O.P.P.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJgFU3U4X\_Y [youtube.com]Rihanna - SOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeyhtlJp5A [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116062</id>
	<title>This should be anticipated by the music industry</title>
	<author>Device666</author>
	<datestamp>1258390320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be seriously surprised if the music industry didn't see this one coming and isn't busy trying to avoid losing copyright grants. Maybe they even simply can't ovoid losing grants for those cases where the artist is deceased. It's very good that those companies lose copyright grants: material can now be archived and used for personal use or the sake of studying history.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be seriously surprised if the music industry did n't see this one coming and is n't busy trying to avoid losing copyright grants .
Maybe they even simply ca n't ovoid losing grants for those cases where the artist is deceased .
It 's very good that those companies lose copyright grants : material can now be archived and used for personal use or the sake of studying history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be seriously surprised if the music industry didn't see this one coming and isn't busy trying to avoid losing copyright grants.
Maybe they even simply can't ovoid losing grants for those cases where the artist is deceased.
It's very good that those companies lose copyright grants: material can now be archived and used for personal use or the sake of studying history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114978</id>
	<title>Re:Making the summary not completely backwards</title>
	<author>Frankie70</author>
	<datestamp>1258385580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seriously, the summary would suggest that this is bad news. It's in fact good news for everyone but record companies.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure - this is bad news for the record companies.<br>But how is this good news for anyone except the artists?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the summary would suggest that this is bad news .
It 's in fact good news for everyone but record companies.Sure - this is bad news for the record companies.But how is this good news for anyone except the artists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the summary would suggest that this is bad news.
It's in fact good news for everyone but record companies.Sure - this is bad news for the record companies.But how is this good news for anyone except the artists?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115172</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Grizzley9</author>
	<datestamp>1258386360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is bad because the Eagles may be even more greedy than the record companies. They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour and probably wouldn't mind when selling their wares.</p></div><p>They are the artists and creators, that's their prerogative.  You don't have to listen to them and in this case I don't mind as it's coming directly from the artists and not some big corporation 3rd party.  Do you value all music the same?  In a free market some songs/artists work would cost more than others b/c of it's perceived value.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is bad because the Eagles may be even more greedy than the record companies .
They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour and probably would n't mind when selling their wares.They are the artists and creators , that 's their prerogative .
You do n't have to listen to them and in this case I do n't mind as it 's coming directly from the artists and not some big corporation 3rd party .
Do you value all music the same ?
In a free market some songs/artists work would cost more than others b/c of it 's perceived value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is bad because the Eagles may be even more greedy than the record companies.
They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour and probably wouldn't mind when selling their wares.They are the artists and creators, that's their prerogative.
You don't have to listen to them and in this case I don't mind as it's coming directly from the artists and not some big corporation 3rd party.
Do you value all music the same?
In a free market some songs/artists work would cost more than others b/c of it's perceived value.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116544</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258392600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really the next best thing - this is just one gang of millionaires getting stuff from another gang of millionaires, when the stuff in question should already be public domain. The Eagles can lobby Congress for perpetual copyright just like the *IAAs can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really the next best thing - this is just one gang of millionaires getting stuff from another gang of millionaires , when the stuff in question should already be public domain .
The Eagles can lobby Congress for perpetual copyright just like the * IAAs can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really the next best thing - this is just one gang of millionaires getting stuff from another gang of millionaires, when the stuff in question should already be public domain.
The Eagles can lobby Congress for perpetual copyright just like the *IAAs can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116656</id>
	<title>How I learned to quit worrying and love the bomb.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1258393140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a time bomb, fellows, it's a love bomb. Quit worrying and learn to love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a time bomb , fellows , it 's a love bomb .
Quit worrying and learn to love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a time bomb, fellows, it's a love bomb.
Quit worrying and learn to love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114734</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1258384200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talking about work for hire...<br>FTFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>but numerous sources say they [The RIAA] are prepared to take the issue to court. One potential strategy being considered: to <b>claim that sound recordings aren't subject to termination because they were created as "works for hire," </b> making the record companies the legal authors.</p></div><p>Howdy shit. Does any artist really wants this?<br>This just shows how evil record companies are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking about work for hire...FTFA : but numerous sources say they [ The RIAA ] are prepared to take the issue to court .
One potential strategy being considered : to claim that sound recordings are n't subject to termination because they were created as " works for hire , " making the record companies the legal authors.Howdy shit .
Does any artist really wants this ? This just shows how evil record companies are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking about work for hire...FTFA:but numerous sources say they [The RIAA] are prepared to take the issue to court.
One potential strategy being considered: to claim that sound recordings aren't subject to termination because they were created as "works for hire,"  making the record companies the legal authors.Howdy shit.
Does any artist really wants this?This just shows how evil record companies are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116114</id>
	<title>curent copyright law is morally indefensible</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1258390560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is your duty to not ignore current copyright law, but to do your best to actively destroy it. current copyright law impoverishes us culturally with ridiculous restrictions on the flow of culture simply for the sake of creating a business model for a business which isn't even necessary. current copyright law was meant as a gentleman's agreement amongst large media players sipping mojitos in oak paneled rooms, never meant as a bully club against the general public</p><p>until such time that copyright provisions return to normalcy: 5-10 years of protection for the creators only, and until such time that publishers are rendered economically untenable, it is your duty as a moral person to not ignore copyright, but to do as much economic damage as possible to the parasitic businesses known as publishers</p><p>they were a necessary evil in the pre-internet world. in the internet world, publishers are simply evil, having been rendered redundant by simple technological progress</p><p>it is time to wipe publishers from the face of the earth with a prolonged campaign to reduce their financial inflows to zero</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is your duty to not ignore current copyright law , but to do your best to actively destroy it .
current copyright law impoverishes us culturally with ridiculous restrictions on the flow of culture simply for the sake of creating a business model for a business which is n't even necessary .
current copyright law was meant as a gentleman 's agreement amongst large media players sipping mojitos in oak paneled rooms , never meant as a bully club against the general publicuntil such time that copyright provisions return to normalcy : 5-10 years of protection for the creators only , and until such time that publishers are rendered economically untenable , it is your duty as a moral person to not ignore copyright , but to do as much economic damage as possible to the parasitic businesses known as publishersthey were a necessary evil in the pre-internet world .
in the internet world , publishers are simply evil , having been rendered redundant by simple technological progressit is time to wipe publishers from the face of the earth with a prolonged campaign to reduce their financial inflows to zero</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is your duty to not ignore current copyright law, but to do your best to actively destroy it.
current copyright law impoverishes us culturally with ridiculous restrictions on the flow of culture simply for the sake of creating a business model for a business which isn't even necessary.
current copyright law was meant as a gentleman's agreement amongst large media players sipping mojitos in oak paneled rooms, never meant as a bully club against the general publicuntil such time that copyright provisions return to normalcy: 5-10 years of protection for the creators only, and until such time that publishers are rendered economically untenable, it is your duty as a moral person to not ignore copyright, but to do as much economic damage as possible to the parasitic businesses known as publishersthey were a necessary evil in the pre-internet world.
in the internet world, publishers are simply evil, having been rendered redundant by simple technological progressit is time to wipe publishers from the face of the earth with a prolonged campaign to reduce their financial inflows to zero</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114316</id>
	<title>Its time to think about the future, not the past</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258380540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Musicians should make music because they work for the people. I think it all comes down to the corrosive influence of Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal sympathies on the couscousness of our generation. Why can't I eat an orange in peace? Because the IRS bought it with their ray guns!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Musicians should make music because they work for the people .
I think it all comes down to the corrosive influence of Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal sympathies on the couscousness of our generation .
Why ca n't I eat an orange in peace ?
Because the IRS bought it with their ray guns !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Musicians should make music because they work for the people.
I think it all comes down to the corrosive influence of Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal sympathies on the couscousness of our generation.
Why can't I eat an orange in peace?
Because the IRS bought it with their ray guns!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115218</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>blincoln</author>
	<datestamp>1258386540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me. I mean, it's like "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp", and "journalistic ethics" - the words don't go together, man.</i></p><p>Please listen to some Skinny Puppy from the 80s, the Plunderphonics album, the collective works of Duran Duran Duran*, etc. Sampling in the right hands is a very effective musical element. Sadly that sort of work isn't done very often anymore, because of the legal barriers that have been created.</p><p>* not Duran Duran, although I like their music too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The term " innovative sampling " has always amazed me .
I mean , it 's like " military intelligence " , " jumbo shrimp " , and " journalistic ethics " - the words do n't go together , man.Please listen to some Skinny Puppy from the 80s , the Plunderphonics album , the collective works of Duran Duran Duran * , etc .
Sampling in the right hands is a very effective musical element .
Sadly that sort of work is n't done very often anymore , because of the legal barriers that have been created .
* not Duran Duran , although I like their music too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me.
I mean, it's like "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp", and "journalistic ethics" - the words don't go together, man.Please listen to some Skinny Puppy from the 80s, the Plunderphonics album, the collective works of Duran Duran Duran*, etc.
Sampling in the right hands is a very effective musical element.
Sadly that sort of work isn't done very often anymore, because of the legal barriers that have been created.
* not Duran Duran, although I like their music too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114350</id>
	<title>Interesting times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258380840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day. Quite a lot of young artists now, realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution, not easy on an international stage without limited funds, but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album.</p><p>I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands, direct from their sites, to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise. I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole. I can't say I like the Eagles much, another super-rich corp band to my mind, but it's their work and good luck to them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day .
Quite a lot of young artists now , realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution , not easy on an international stage without limited funds , but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album.I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands , direct from their sites , to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise .
I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole .
I ca n't say I like the Eagles much , another super-rich corp band to my mind , but it 's their work and good luck to them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day.
Quite a lot of young artists now, realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution, not easy on an international stage without limited funds, but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album.I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands, direct from their sites, to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise.
I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole.
I can't say I like the Eagles much, another super-rich corp band to my mind, but it's their work and good luck to them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115484</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the Hotel California</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258387560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can check out any time they like, but they can never leave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can check out any time they like , but they can never leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can check out any time they like, but they can never leave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1258382940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me.  I mean, it's like "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp", and "journalistic ethics" - the words don't go together, man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The term " innovative sampling " has always amazed me .
I mean , it 's like " military intelligence " , " jumbo shrimp " , and " journalistic ethics " - the words do n't go together , man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me.
I mean, it's like "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp", and "journalistic ethics" - the words don't go together, man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114486</id>
	<title>Tables turned</title>
	<author>mr\_gorkajuice</author>
	<datestamp>1258382280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cool stuff. Artists will be giving publishers the same phrase publishers have been giving consumers: "You don't own the music you bought from us - you're just licensed to it"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool stuff .
Artists will be giving publishers the same phrase publishers have been giving consumers : " You do n't own the music you bought from us - you 're just licensed to it "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool stuff.
Artists will be giving publishers the same phrase publishers have been giving consumers: "You don't own the music you bought from us - you're just licensed to it"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115230</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1258386600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>worth noting that the RIAA's influence has also substantially waned since the last time Congress tried to bone the creatives (1999) thus decreasing the motivation for congress to carry their water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>worth noting that the RIAA 's influence has also substantially waned since the last time Congress tried to bone the creatives ( 1999 ) thus decreasing the motivation for congress to carry their water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>worth noting that the RIAA's influence has also substantially waned since the last time Congress tried to bone the creatives (1999) thus decreasing the motivation for congress to carry their water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114580</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258383060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are speaking Latin, the plural of campus is campi.  If you are speaking English, it's campuses.</p><p><a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campus" title="wiktionary.org">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campus</a> [wiktionary.org]<br><a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Plural\_of\_campus" title="answers.com">http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Plural\_of\_campus</a> [answers.com]<br><a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campi" title="wiktionary.org">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campi</a> [wiktionary.org]<br><a href="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-151248.html" title="straightdope.com">http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-151248.html</a> [straightdope.com]<br><a href="http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/campus" title="reverso.net">http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/campus</a> [reverso.net]</p><p>Both are valid.  Campuses is standard, campi is not.</p><p>*shrugs*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are speaking Latin , the plural of campus is campi .
If you are speaking English , it 's campuses.http : //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campus [ wiktionary.org ] http : //wiki.answers.com/Q/Plural \ _of \ _campus [ answers.com ] http : //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campi [ wiktionary.org ] http : //boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-151248.html [ straightdope.com ] http : //dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/campus [ reverso.net ] Both are valid .
Campuses is standard , campi is not .
* shrugs *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are speaking Latin, the plural of campus is campi.
If you are speaking English, it's campuses.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campus [wiktionary.org]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Plural\_of\_campus [answers.com]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campi [wiktionary.org]http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-151248.html [straightdope.com]http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/campus [reverso.net]Both are valid.
Campuses is standard, campi is not.
*shrugs*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114706</id>
	<title>Re:Effect on games, etc.?</title>
	<author>FellowConspirator</author>
	<datestamp>1258384020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's wouldn't affect current legitimate licensees. The licensees aren't copyright holders, they're licensees. Once you've been given license to use a copyrighted work, transfer of the copyright doesn't modify or invalidate your license.</p><p>This is why record companies don't transfer copyrights to shell corporations that require you to pay a charge on your existing CD collection. You know that if the record companies could do that, they would have started a long time ago.</p><p>Actually, the threat to MPAA-members is not that they are losing control of the works, but rather the parties gaining control of the works will likely disrupt the MPAA-member's business models even further by indulging in alternative distribution methods / channels, being more generous on licensing, or just being innovative on how they use / profit from the works. The can afford to lose the Eagles, they can't afford for the Eagles to show the world that they can do better than the label and -- *gasp* -- come up with something that resonates with the customers or other artists. That's what they fear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's would n't affect current legitimate licensees .
The licensees are n't copyright holders , they 're licensees .
Once you 've been given license to use a copyrighted work , transfer of the copyright does n't modify or invalidate your license.This is why record companies do n't transfer copyrights to shell corporations that require you to pay a charge on your existing CD collection .
You know that if the record companies could do that , they would have started a long time ago.Actually , the threat to MPAA-members is not that they are losing control of the works , but rather the parties gaining control of the works will likely disrupt the MPAA-member 's business models even further by indulging in alternative distribution methods / channels , being more generous on licensing , or just being innovative on how they use / profit from the works .
The can afford to lose the Eagles , they ca n't afford for the Eagles to show the world that they can do better than the label and -- * gasp * -- come up with something that resonates with the customers or other artists .
That 's what they fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's wouldn't affect current legitimate licensees.
The licensees aren't copyright holders, they're licensees.
Once you've been given license to use a copyrighted work, transfer of the copyright doesn't modify or invalidate your license.This is why record companies don't transfer copyrights to shell corporations that require you to pay a charge on your existing CD collection.
You know that if the record companies could do that, they would have started a long time ago.Actually, the threat to MPAA-members is not that they are losing control of the works, but rather the parties gaining control of the works will likely disrupt the MPAA-member's business models even further by indulging in alternative distribution methods / channels, being more generous on licensing, or just being innovative on how they use / profit from the works.
The can afford to lose the Eagles, they can't afford for the Eagles to show the world that they can do better than the label and -- *gasp* -- come up with something that resonates with the customers or other artists.
That's what they fear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114558</id>
	<title>Making the summary not completely backwards</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1258382880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At a time when the public hasn't gotten anything added to the public domain since the 1920's, the first thing they need is for valuable copyrights from the 50's, 60's, and 70's, much of which is still loved by music fans of all ages. Thankfully, the wheels are already in motion.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer]. 'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They're going to do it; it's coming up.'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...If the musicians' best strategy to make use copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme advantage, they're in for a quite lucrative ride.</p></div><p>Seriously, the summary would suggest that this is bad news. It's in fact good news for everyone but record companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At a time when the public has n't gotten anything added to the public domain since the 1920 's , the first thing they need is for valuable copyrights from the 50 's , 60 's , and 70 's , much of which is still loved by music fans of all ages .
Thankfully , the wheels are already in motion .
... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It 's going to happen, ' said [ an industry lawyer ] .
'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog .
They do n't need a record company now... You 'll be able to go to Eagles.com ( currently under construction ) and get all their songs .
They 're going to do it ; it 's coming up .
' ...If the musicians ' best strategy to make use copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme advantage , they 're in for a quite lucrative ride.Seriously , the summary would suggest that this is bad news .
It 's in fact good news for everyone but record companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a time when the public hasn't gotten anything added to the public domain since the 1920's, the first thing they need is for valuable copyrights from the 50's, 60's, and 70's, much of which is still loved by music fans of all ages.
Thankfully, the wheels are already in motion.
... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer].
'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog.
They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs.
They're going to do it; it's coming up.
' ...If the musicians' best strategy to make use copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme advantage, they're in for a quite lucrative ride.Seriously, the summary would suggest that this is bad news.
It's in fact good news for everyone but record companies.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115148</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258386240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour...</p></div><p>For instance?</p><p>Not disagreeing or anything, but an accusation like that requires more than just a statement in passing to be taken seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour...For instance ? Not disagreeing or anything , but an accusation like that requires more than just a statement in passing to be taken seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour...For instance?Not disagreeing or anything, but an accusation like that requires more than just a statement in passing to be taken seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115578</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting times</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1258388040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean it's not so easy on an international stage? I'm pretty sure the Internet is international.</p><p>If you're shipping little plastic disks out for some insane reason, then pack it full of awesome goodies and make it worth the premium price you'd be charging them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean it 's not so easy on an international stage ?
I 'm pretty sure the Internet is international.If you 're shipping little plastic disks out for some insane reason , then pack it full of awesome goodies and make it worth the premium price you 'd be charging them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean it's not so easy on an international stage?
I'm pretty sure the Internet is international.If you're shipping little plastic disks out for some insane reason, then pack it full of awesome goodies and make it worth the premium price you'd be charging them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115810</id>
	<title>I have but one phrase for RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258389000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We got the beat we got the beat WE GOT THE BEAT YAHHHH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We got the beat we got the beat WE GOT THE BEAT YAHHHH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We got the beat we got the beat WE GOT THE BEAT YAHHHH</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1258382940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the next best thing to the work going to the public domain. All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles without having to line the pocket books of a RIAA affiliated label.<br> <br>

I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the next best thing to the work going to the public domain .
All us " pirates " that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles without having to line the pocket books of a RIAA affiliated label .
I do n't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection , but really the moment the last of them is dead , it should go to the public pretty soon after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the next best thing to the work going to the public domain.
All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles without having to line the pocket books of a RIAA affiliated label.
I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118412</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258398720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that's how it should be. I boycott all pro sports teams, as their ticket prices are rapacious and the product is relative shit, especially compared to minor-league teams. But they still make money hand over fist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's how it should be .
I boycott all pro sports teams , as their ticket prices are rapacious and the product is relative shit , especially compared to minor-league teams .
But they still make money hand over fist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's how it should be.
I boycott all pro sports teams, as their ticket prices are rapacious and the product is relative shit, especially compared to minor-league teams.
But they still make money hand over fist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114732</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1258384140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's going to be that easy though.</p><p>It's very much in the interests of the artists to have this, including quite a few very well known ones who can easily get a lot of publicity. Also, the whole "but, but, the artists!" thing the record companies like so much isn't really going to fly with the artists being for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's going to be that easy though.It 's very much in the interests of the artists to have this , including quite a few very well known ones who can easily get a lot of publicity .
Also , the whole " but , but , the artists !
" thing the record companies like so much is n't really going to fly with the artists being for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's going to be that easy though.It's very much in the interests of the artists to have this, including quite a few very well known ones who can easily get a lot of publicity.
Also, the whole "but, but, the artists!
" thing the record companies like so much isn't really going to fly with the artists being for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114822</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1258384800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Afaict radio stations nearly always pay for the right to air music through thier countries compulsary licensing body anyway so I doubt this will have any impact on them either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Afaict radio stations nearly always pay for the right to air music through thier countries compulsary licensing body anyway so I doubt this will have any impact on them either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Afaict radio stations nearly always pay for the right to air music through thier countries compulsary licensing body anyway so I doubt this will have any impact on them either way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116936</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>domatic</author>
	<datestamp>1258394040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call it ear rape but I surely got tired of their top-40 hits years ago.  But then the sad state of American broadcast radio is another rant entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call it ear rape but I surely got tired of their top-40 hits years ago .
But then the sad state of American broadcast radio is another rant entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call it ear rape but I surely got tired of their top-40 hits years ago.
But then the sad state of American broadcast radio is another rant entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30131024</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258482900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>35 years is even enough time to drain a lot of milk from someone elses artwork. Some of these people didn't get a lot of money for the reinvigorated success of their works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>35 years is even enough time to drain a lot of milk from someone elses artwork .
Some of these people did n't get a lot of money for the reinvigorated success of their works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>35 years is even enough time to drain a lot of milk from someone elses artwork.
Some of these people didn't get a lot of money for the reinvigorated success of their works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118216</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258398180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. lets extend that everywhere.<br>The minute you get hit bya  bus, the state should take your family home and throw your wife and kids out in the street.<br>Deal?<br>After all, you seem to think that someone's lifes work is timeless if its invested in bricks and mortar, but worthless and temporary if its invested in anything encoded digitally.<br>Talk about indefensible...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
lets extend that everywhere.The minute you get hit bya bus , the state should take your family home and throw your wife and kids out in the street.Deal ? After all , you seem to think that someone 's lifes work is timeless if its invested in bricks and mortar , but worthless and temporary if its invested in anything encoded digitally.Talk about indefensible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
lets extend that everywhere.The minute you get hit bya  bus, the state should take your family home and throw your wife and kids out in the street.Deal?After all, you seem to think that someone's lifes work is timeless if its invested in bricks and mortar, but worthless and temporary if its invested in anything encoded digitally.Talk about indefensible...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114630</id>
	<title>This needs a campaign</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1258383420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not volunteering to run it, mind you, but this calls for a campaign directed at the artists, to encourage them to get out from underneath the RIAA's thumb.  Extol the merits of Creative Commons, of self-publishing, etc.  Set up a website keeping track of those artists who've reclaimed their copyright, and cheer with each new name.  It looks like there is a time limit on this, and some of the artists might not hear about it or might not think it's important.</p><p>It won't work on everyone, and some artists might be just as bad or worse than the RIAA, but overall the more copyrights the RIAA loses, the better it will be for everyone (except them).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not volunteering to run it , mind you , but this calls for a campaign directed at the artists , to encourage them to get out from underneath the RIAA 's thumb .
Extol the merits of Creative Commons , of self-publishing , etc .
Set up a website keeping track of those artists who 've reclaimed their copyright , and cheer with each new name .
It looks like there is a time limit on this , and some of the artists might not hear about it or might not think it 's important.It wo n't work on everyone , and some artists might be just as bad or worse than the RIAA , but overall the more copyrights the RIAA loses , the better it will be for everyone ( except them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not volunteering to run it, mind you, but this calls for a campaign directed at the artists, to encourage them to get out from underneath the RIAA's thumb.
Extol the merits of Creative Commons, of self-publishing, etc.
Set up a website keeping track of those artists who've reclaimed their copyright, and cheer with each new name.
It looks like there is a time limit on this, and some of the artists might not hear about it or might not think it's important.It won't work on everyone, and some artists might be just as bad or worse than the RIAA, but overall the more copyrights the RIAA loses, the better it will be for everyone (except them).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396</id>
	<title>Awesome</title>
	<author>SirGarlon</author>
	<datestamp>1258381320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did not know about the grant expiration clause written into the 1976 Copyright Act (RTFA to learn more).  It's good to know that Congress defined copyrights to actually belong to the artists and they can get them back from the recording companies after 35 years.  This sort of restores my confidence in US copyright law.  Seriously.</p><p>Of course I think 35 years is too long but that's just a matter of degree.  I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not know about the grant expiration clause written into the 1976 Copyright Act ( RTFA to learn more ) .
It 's good to know that Congress defined copyrights to actually belong to the artists and they can get them back from the recording companies after 35 years .
This sort of restores my confidence in US copyright law .
Seriously.Of course I think 35 years is too long but that 's just a matter of degree .
I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not know about the grant expiration clause written into the 1976 Copyright Act (RTFA to learn more).
It's good to know that Congress defined copyrights to actually belong to the artists and they can get them back from the recording companies after 35 years.
This sort of restores my confidence in US copyright law.
Seriously.Of course I think 35 years is too long but that's just a matter of degree.
I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118402</id>
	<title>Re:the return of 80s rap?</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1258398660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I encourage you to watch this as an example of innovative sampling that you might like:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I encourage you to watch this as an example of innovative sampling that you might like : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = zSgiXGELjbc [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I encourage you to watch this as an example of innovative sampling that you might like:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114494</id>
	<title>What I find particularly interesting about this...</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1258382400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are numerous examples of young musicians signing very one-sided contracts and not fully grasping the implications until it's far too late.</p><p>A few of these have since gone on to become successful and have become rather more careful in their dealings with record companies.  Prince immediately springs to mind, as does Courtney Love.</p><p>I cannot help but wonder - does this mean there's an entire generation of musicians who released successful work and got screwed by the record company who are now going back to their label and saying "Er... excuse me... I'd like my copyrights back, please."   Could be interesting....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are numerous examples of young musicians signing very one-sided contracts and not fully grasping the implications until it 's far too late.A few of these have since gone on to become successful and have become rather more careful in their dealings with record companies .
Prince immediately springs to mind , as does Courtney Love.I can not help but wonder - does this mean there 's an entire generation of musicians who released successful work and got screwed by the record company who are now going back to their label and saying " Er... excuse me... I 'd like my copyrights back , please .
" Could be interesting... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are numerous examples of young musicians signing very one-sided contracts and not fully grasping the implications until it's far too late.A few of these have since gone on to become successful and have become rather more careful in their dealings with record companies.
Prince immediately springs to mind, as does Courtney Love.I cannot help but wonder - does this mean there's an entire generation of musicians who released successful work and got screwed by the record company who are now going back to their label and saying "Er... excuse me... I'd like my copyrights back, please.
"   Could be interesting....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115610</id>
	<title>Welcome to the latest instalment...</title>
	<author>bonze</author>
	<datestamp>1258388160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... of Lola vs. Powerman and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkmbD75a6U" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">The Money-Go-Round!</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... of Lola vs. Powerman and The Money-Go-Round !
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... of Lola vs. Powerman and The Money-Go-Round!
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30121162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30117238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30126484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30127152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30119582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30126434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30133204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30119526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30117150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30126962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2119230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30119158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114740
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114872
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30119526
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30117150
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30119158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30119582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30121162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115142
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30126962
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30117238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30133204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30127152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30126434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116616
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30126484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30118902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30116464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2119230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30114648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2119230.30115484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
