<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_29_0110253</id>
	<title>UK Consumers To Pay For Online Piracy</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1262112660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Wowsers writes <i>"An article in The Times states that UK consumers will be hit with an <a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech\_and\_web/the\_web/article6969105.ece">estimated &pound;500m ($800m US) bill to tackle online piracy</a>. The record and film industries have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses. Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times, and change their business models. Other businesses have adapted and been successful, but the film and record industries refuse to do so. Surely they should not add another stealth tax to all consumers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wowsers writes " An article in The Times states that UK consumers will be hit with an estimated   500m ( $ 800m US ) bill to tackle online piracy .
The record and film industries have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses .
Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times , and change their business models .
Other businesses have adapted and been successful , but the film and record industries refuse to do so .
Surely they should not add another stealth tax to all consumers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wowsers writes "An article in The Times states that UK consumers will be hit with an estimated £500m ($800m US) bill to tackle online piracy.
The record and film industries have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses.
Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times, and change their business models.
Other businesses have adapted and been successful, but the film and record industries refuse to do so.
Surely they should not add another stealth tax to all consumers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581666</id>
	<title>what about my percived losses????</title>
	<author>garynuman</author>
	<datestamp>1262099760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a bartender part time- I'm to work tonight and it has been snowing heavily the past two days, and as result I highly doubt I'll make as much money as i usually do on Tuesday night due to the poor road conditions.... who do I speak to about remuneration, mother nature? i wish i were a multinational corporation that dialogs with governments on the intellectual level of a toddler throwing a temper tantrum<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a bartender part time- I 'm to work tonight and it has been snowing heavily the past two days , and as result I highly doubt I 'll make as much money as i usually do on Tuesday night due to the poor road conditions.... who do I speak to about remuneration , mother nature ?
i wish i were a multinational corporation that dialogs with governments on the intellectual level of a toddler throwing a temper tantrum ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a bartender part time- I'm to work tonight and it has been snowing heavily the past two days, and as result I highly doubt I'll make as much money as i usually do on Tuesday night due to the poor road conditions.... who do I speak to about remuneration, mother nature?
i wish i were a multinational corporation that dialogs with governments on the intellectual level of a toddler throwing a temper tantrum ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579780</id>
	<title>piracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262030340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it won't be piracy anymore, they will just be taking delivery on the goods they paid for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it wo n't be piracy anymore , they will just be taking delivery on the goods they paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it won't be piracy anymore, they will just be taking delivery on the goods they paid for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583954</id>
	<title>Re:Great!</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262112420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It is actually legal in the Netherlands to copy music or video from another source (neighbour, friend, internet) if it is for personal use. Naturally the recording industry association is trying to change the law, but just a few months a great move was made by our government showing that they will not be easily influenced by the media lobby:</i> <br> <br>Best check for links between that lobby and security at Schiphol Airport<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is actually legal in the Netherlands to copy music or video from another source ( neighbour , friend , internet ) if it is for personal use .
Naturally the recording industry association is trying to change the law , but just a few months a great move was made by our government showing that they will not be easily influenced by the media lobby : Best check for links between that lobby and security at Schiphol Airport : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is actually legal in the Netherlands to copy music or video from another source (neighbour, friend, internet) if it is for personal use.
Naturally the recording industry association is trying to change the law, but just a few months a great move was made by our government showing that they will not be easily influenced by the media lobby:  Best check for links between that lobby and security at Schiphol Airport :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579896</id>
	<title>I struggle to understand their basis for argument.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, let me see if I understand this.  These industries claim loss of profit for something where the people acquiring the product would not have paid for it anyway?  I think the answer is simple really. Clamp down on the operations that are making money from stolen I.P., and turn over cash and assets that was made illegally.  That is where real and quantifiable "losses" are.  Anything claimed to be a loss where no money was exchanged, and where no data is gathered statistically becomes merely speculative.  And isn't it convenient how Pirates are confused with downloaders.  Yes, there really is a difference.  One is the opportunistic thief that intends to merely take a copy of a product for their own use, the other is the opportunistic thief that wishes not only to copy your product but also wishes to make money from it.  Now decide for yourself which is the actual pirate?  Of course, the industry lumps them all together, but only talks about the downloaders and sharers who really don't tend to profit in a fiscal sense from what they do.</p><p>If you want to stop the law breaker, make in unprofitable for them personally to engage in such activities.  Punishing the masses via hidden taxes which are alleged to be aimed at recovering/combating perceived losses merely serves to alienate people the people who you wish to be sympathetic to your cause.  But the reality is that it isn't about failing business models or reclaiming "lost" profit, but about creating a new business model where you can make a claim about anything you like, win support from government, and acquire NEW profit without investing in an actual product.  This is about adding value to their existing products... getting something for nothing as it were.  All that guff about it being unfair to those poor wealthy media barons is merely a smoke screen, which governments and the majority of the unwashed masses are being blinded by.</p><p>The music and film industries are becoming nothing more than clever pickpockets on a grand scale, and using governments to use taxpayer's money to do their thieving for them.</p><p>"Look at the pretty performance I put on for you while my government stooge sneaks into your pocket to remove your wallet!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let me see if I understand this .
These industries claim loss of profit for something where the people acquiring the product would not have paid for it anyway ?
I think the answer is simple really .
Clamp down on the operations that are making money from stolen I.P. , and turn over cash and assets that was made illegally .
That is where real and quantifiable " losses " are .
Anything claimed to be a loss where no money was exchanged , and where no data is gathered statistically becomes merely speculative .
And is n't it convenient how Pirates are confused with downloaders .
Yes , there really is a difference .
One is the opportunistic thief that intends to merely take a copy of a product for their own use , the other is the opportunistic thief that wishes not only to copy your product but also wishes to make money from it .
Now decide for yourself which is the actual pirate ?
Of course , the industry lumps them all together , but only talks about the downloaders and sharers who really do n't tend to profit in a fiscal sense from what they do.If you want to stop the law breaker , make in unprofitable for them personally to engage in such activities .
Punishing the masses via hidden taxes which are alleged to be aimed at recovering/combating perceived losses merely serves to alienate people the people who you wish to be sympathetic to your cause .
But the reality is that it is n't about failing business models or reclaiming " lost " profit , but about creating a new business model where you can make a claim about anything you like , win support from government , and acquire NEW profit without investing in an actual product .
This is about adding value to their existing products... getting something for nothing as it were .
All that guff about it being unfair to those poor wealthy media barons is merely a smoke screen , which governments and the majority of the unwashed masses are being blinded by.The music and film industries are becoming nothing more than clever pickpockets on a grand scale , and using governments to use taxpayer 's money to do their thieving for them .
" Look at the pretty performance I put on for you while my government stooge sneaks into your pocket to remove your wallet !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let me see if I understand this.
These industries claim loss of profit for something where the people acquiring the product would not have paid for it anyway?
I think the answer is simple really.
Clamp down on the operations that are making money from stolen I.P., and turn over cash and assets that was made illegally.
That is where real and quantifiable "losses" are.
Anything claimed to be a loss where no money was exchanged, and where no data is gathered statistically becomes merely speculative.
And isn't it convenient how Pirates are confused with downloaders.
Yes, there really is a difference.
One is the opportunistic thief that intends to merely take a copy of a product for their own use, the other is the opportunistic thief that wishes not only to copy your product but also wishes to make money from it.
Now decide for yourself which is the actual pirate?
Of course, the industry lumps them all together, but only talks about the downloaders and sharers who really don't tend to profit in a fiscal sense from what they do.If you want to stop the law breaker, make in unprofitable for them personally to engage in such activities.
Punishing the masses via hidden taxes which are alleged to be aimed at recovering/combating perceived losses merely serves to alienate people the people who you wish to be sympathetic to your cause.
But the reality is that it isn't about failing business models or reclaiming "lost" profit, but about creating a new business model where you can make a claim about anything you like, win support from government, and acquire NEW profit without investing in an actual product.
This is about adding value to their existing products... getting something for nothing as it were.
All that guff about it being unfair to those poor wealthy media barons is merely a smoke screen, which governments and the majority of the unwashed masses are being blinded by.The music and film industries are becoming nothing more than clever pickpockets on a grand scale, and using governments to use taxpayer's money to do their thieving for them.
"Look at the pretty performance I put on for you while my government stooge sneaks into your pocket to remove your wallet!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580018</id>
	<title>Think of the opportunities!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If laws like this are put to pass, think of the opportunities for various other business models!</p><p>"I published a shareware program which includes a payment of $10 after 30 days of use.  This is not really enforced or even nagged on about.  The software has had 200k downloads and 20 people have actually paid for it."  =&gt; lost revenues $1999980 =&gt; get payment from government.</p><p>Or FLOSS-style: "Our team developed a popular webserver/database which we distribute for free, only getting revenue from support contracts.  50M downloads, yet only 2k acquire a $2000 yearly support contract." =&gt; lost revenues $99.996G =&gt; drive government to bankruptcy.</p><p>Or even: "I put up a stand to sell lemonade to passing people.  I had $2 worth of soda, enough to serve 20 people, $0.5 each.  Yet no-one bought anything (-10C weather might have had something to do with it).  Instead they bought lemonade from the nearby megamart." =&gt; lost revenues $8 =&gt; get pocket money from the government.</p><p>This law also solves the classic underpants-gnome problem: 1) Bank on a failing business model, 2) ??? =&gt; Make the government pay for your failure, 3) Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If laws like this are put to pass , think of the opportunities for various other business models !
" I published a shareware program which includes a payment of $ 10 after 30 days of use .
This is not really enforced or even nagged on about .
The software has had 200k downloads and 20 people have actually paid for it .
" = &gt; lost revenues $ 1999980 = &gt; get payment from government.Or FLOSS-style : " Our team developed a popular webserver/database which we distribute for free , only getting revenue from support contracts .
50M downloads , yet only 2k acquire a $ 2000 yearly support contract .
" = &gt; lost revenues $ 99.996G = &gt; drive government to bankruptcy.Or even : " I put up a stand to sell lemonade to passing people .
I had $ 2 worth of soda , enough to serve 20 people , $ 0.5 each .
Yet no-one bought anything ( -10C weather might have had something to do with it ) .
Instead they bought lemonade from the nearby megamart .
" = &gt; lost revenues $ 8 = &gt; get pocket money from the government.This law also solves the classic underpants-gnome problem : 1 ) Bank on a failing business model , 2 ) ? ? ?
= &gt; Make the government pay for your failure , 3 ) Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If laws like this are put to pass, think of the opportunities for various other business models!
"I published a shareware program which includes a payment of $10 after 30 days of use.
This is not really enforced or even nagged on about.
The software has had 200k downloads and 20 people have actually paid for it.
"  =&gt; lost revenues $1999980 =&gt; get payment from government.Or FLOSS-style: "Our team developed a popular webserver/database which we distribute for free, only getting revenue from support contracts.
50M downloads, yet only 2k acquire a $2000 yearly support contract.
" =&gt; lost revenues $99.996G =&gt; drive government to bankruptcy.Or even: "I put up a stand to sell lemonade to passing people.
I had $2 worth of soda, enough to serve 20 people, $0.5 each.
Yet no-one bought anything (-10C weather might have had something to do with it).
Instead they bought lemonade from the nearby megamart.
" =&gt; lost revenues $8 =&gt; get pocket money from the government.This law also solves the classic underpants-gnome problem: 1) Bank on a failing business model, 2) ???
=&gt; Make the government pay for your failure, 3) Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579882</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I was not a communist;<br>Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I was not a trade unionist;<br>Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I was not a Jew;<br><b>Then they came for me&mdash;and there was no one left to speak out for me.</b>"</i></p><p>Reveling in schadenfreude does no one any good. As an American, I'm truely saddened at what's happening in other nations. They can equally say the same about us too, and rightfully so. Such actions should be universally condemned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" First they came for the communists , and I did not speak out    because I was not a communist ; Then they came for the trade unionists , and I did not speak out    because I was not a trade unionist ; Then they came for the Jews , and I did not speak out    because I was not a Jew ; Then they came for me    and there was no one left to speak out for me .
" Reveling in schadenfreude does no one any good .
As an American , I 'm truely saddened at what 's happening in other nations .
They can equally say the same about us too , and rightfully so .
Such actions should be universally condemned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
"Reveling in schadenfreude does no one any good.
As an American, I'm truely saddened at what's happening in other nations.
They can equally say the same about us too, and rightfully so.
Such actions should be universally condemned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581000</id>
	<title>Remember "Music" CDRs?</title>
	<author>brainchill</author>
	<datestamp>1262092740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>black cds labeled "Music" from a few years ago came with this tax pre-installed. That is why they cost 1000\% more than regular non "music" cdrs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the piracy was implied.</htmltext>
<tokenext>black cds labeled " Music " from a few years ago came with this tax pre-installed .
That is why they cost 1000 \ % more than regular non " music " cdrs ... the piracy was implied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>black cds labeled "Music" from a few years ago came with this tax pre-installed.
That is why they cost 1000\% more than regular non "music" cdrs ... the piracy was implied.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580872</id>
	<title>"Far worse laws"</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1262091180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US already introduced an equal law - the DMCA. It places similar obligations on ISPs which US residents have been happily footing the bill for in increased internet costs for about a decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US already introduced an equal law - the DMCA .
It places similar obligations on ISPs which US residents have been happily footing the bill for in increased internet costs for about a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US already introduced an equal law - the DMCA.
It places similar obligations on ISPs which US residents have been happily footing the bill for in increased internet costs for about a decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580944</id>
	<title>Re:it's reverse socialism!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262092080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the article you will see that no money from the ISPs will be going to the MAFIAA.  It will all be spent on policing the MAFIAA's bought laws.  I know it's nitpicking but these greedy fools will see nothing from this law and will alienate large swathes of the population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the article you will see that no money from the ISPs will be going to the MAFIAA .
It will all be spent on policing the MAFIAA 's bought laws .
I know it 's nitpicking but these greedy fools will see nothing from this law and will alienate large swathes of the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the article you will see that no money from the ISPs will be going to the MAFIAA.
It will all be spent on policing the MAFIAA's bought laws.
I know it's nitpicking but these greedy fools will see nothing from this law and will alienate large swathes of the population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581024</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1262092980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Decent mics aint free - the standard mics for piano reording ar $3/4 K per  just for the mic and you normaly need 2/3 of thse plus preamps and thats just for one instrument.

whist its is cheaper than say the 60's/70 music gear isnt cheap nor is renting a decent room to record and playing for teh recoding engineers time.

The main cost as ever is promotion</htmltext>
<tokenext>Decent mics aint free - the standard mics for piano reording ar $ 3/4 K per just for the mic and you normaly need 2/3 of thse plus preamps and thats just for one instrument .
whist its is cheaper than say the 60 's/70 music gear isnt cheap nor is renting a decent room to record and playing for teh recoding engineers time .
The main cost as ever is promotion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decent mics aint free - the standard mics for piano reording ar $3/4 K per  just for the mic and you normaly need 2/3 of thse plus preamps and thats just for one instrument.
whist its is cheaper than say the 60's/70 music gear isnt cheap nor is renting a decent room to record and playing for teh recoding engineers time.
The main cost as ever is promotion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579820</id>
	<title>I just wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262117460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much of this money will the artist see? Wouldn't suprise me if it was zero. Still, the real losses are worth $0 too so it's just another industry bailout in an industry posting record profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of this money will the artist see ?
Would n't suprise me if it was zero .
Still , the real losses are worth $ 0 too so it 's just another industry bailout in an industry posting record profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of this money will the artist see?
Wouldn't suprise me if it was zero.
Still, the real losses are worth $0 too so it's just another industry bailout in an industry posting record profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30591694</id>
	<title>Re:Great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259837400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is counter productive anyway. Whilst at one time, I used to download a few US TV shows in advance of them coming here, I realised the moral implications of that and for over 4 years haven't downloaded anything that might constitute copyrighted material - no MP3s, no films, no TV, nothing.</p><p>Whilst they say that this extra fee/levy/tax or whatever else they want to call it will be needed for adminstrative purposes, it'll certainly make me question why I'm paying for something I'm not getting any benefit from, and will actually move me from a position of being against copying stuff to being more inclined to copy things up to the amount I'm being taxed for on the assumption that I am copying anyway. After all, if they believe that I'm copying it anyway and accusing me of the crime and punishing me for it, I might as well actually be doing it and benefitting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is counter productive anyway .
Whilst at one time , I used to download a few US TV shows in advance of them coming here , I realised the moral implications of that and for over 4 years have n't downloaded anything that might constitute copyrighted material - no MP3s , no films , no TV , nothing.Whilst they say that this extra fee/levy/tax or whatever else they want to call it will be needed for adminstrative purposes , it 'll certainly make me question why I 'm paying for something I 'm not getting any benefit from , and will actually move me from a position of being against copying stuff to being more inclined to copy things up to the amount I 'm being taxed for on the assumption that I am copying anyway .
After all , if they believe that I 'm copying it anyway and accusing me of the crime and punishing me for it , I might as well actually be doing it and benefitting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is counter productive anyway.
Whilst at one time, I used to download a few US TV shows in advance of them coming here, I realised the moral implications of that and for over 4 years haven't downloaded anything that might constitute copyrighted material - no MP3s, no films, no TV, nothing.Whilst they say that this extra fee/levy/tax or whatever else they want to call it will be needed for adminstrative purposes, it'll certainly make me question why I'm paying for something I'm not getting any benefit from, and will actually move me from a position of being against copying stuff to being more inclined to copy things up to the amount I'm being taxed for on the assumption that I am copying anyway.
After all, if they believe that I'm copying it anyway and accusing me of the crime and punishing me for it, I might as well actually be doing it and benefitting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580666</id>
	<title>Time to invoice them</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1262088300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was discussing this very thing with some colleagues today and suggested maybe it's time to start pre-emptive invoicing of the music industry for filtering services conducted as a revenue stream for ISP's, and every ISP can do it. If the music industry refuses to pay then filtering services stop until the invoice is paid. If they demand filtering services be conducted then they must pay for the filtering being done - why should the taxpayer.</p><p>
The way it stands is they expect everyone to pay for them. I wonder what the cost to the community is for the innovation they have impeded, now of course, the taxpayer has to pay again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was discussing this very thing with some colleagues today and suggested maybe it 's time to start pre-emptive invoicing of the music industry for filtering services conducted as a revenue stream for ISP 's , and every ISP can do it .
If the music industry refuses to pay then filtering services stop until the invoice is paid .
If they demand filtering services be conducted then they must pay for the filtering being done - why should the taxpayer .
The way it stands is they expect everyone to pay for them .
I wonder what the cost to the community is for the innovation they have impeded , now of course , the taxpayer has to pay again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was discussing this very thing with some colleagues today and suggested maybe it's time to start pre-emptive invoicing of the music industry for filtering services conducted as a revenue stream for ISP's, and every ISP can do it.
If the music industry refuses to pay then filtering services stop until the invoice is paid.
If they demand filtering services be conducted then they must pay for the filtering being done - why should the taxpayer.
The way it stands is they expect everyone to pay for them.
I wonder what the cost to the community is for the innovation they have impeded, now of course, the taxpayer has to pay again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581282</id>
	<title>God bless America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262096460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sure am glad that here in the US we don't have a president who's a shill for the entertainment industry...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure am glad that here in the US we do n't have a president who 's a shill for the entertainment industry.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure am glad that here in the US we don't have a president who's a shill for the entertainment industry...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580046</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite..</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1262077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the ACTA treaty passes, the whole world will pay.  Isn't is a general rule of business to offload expenses that should be yours to the taxpayers?</p><p>The "governments" will loves this as all those deep packet inspections mandated in ACTA will reveal tons of info on everyone that they can have without silly things like warrants or probable cause.</p><p>Everyone is happy.</p><p>This is what happens when any group gets to be so rich and powerful that thay (**IA) no longer have customers to be sold, but consumers to be culled.</p><p>So, there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ACTA treaty passes , the whole world will pay .
Is n't is a general rule of business to offload expenses that should be yours to the taxpayers ? The " governments " will loves this as all those deep packet inspections mandated in ACTA will reveal tons of info on everyone that they can have without silly things like warrants or probable cause.Everyone is happy.This is what happens when any group gets to be so rich and powerful that thay ( * * IA ) no longer have customers to be sold , but consumers to be culled.So , there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the ACTA treaty passes, the whole world will pay.
Isn't is a general rule of business to offload expenses that should be yours to the taxpayers?The "governments" will loves this as all those deep packet inspections mandated in ACTA will reveal tons of info on everyone that they can have without silly things like warrants or probable cause.Everyone is happy.This is what happens when any group gets to be so rich and powerful that thay (**IA) no longer have customers to be sold, but consumers to be culled.So, there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581054</id>
	<title>Re:Great!</title>
	<author>tolan-b</author>
	<datestamp>1262093460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that it seems no-one has read TFA. I know I know...</p><p>This isn't some compensation package for the **AA, it's about the cost of implementing an anti-piracy law for persistent repeat downloaders. I don't really agree with the law myself but this is far from what it's being portrayed as here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that it seems no-one has read TFA .
I know I know...This is n't some compensation package for the * * AA , it 's about the cost of implementing an anti-piracy law for persistent repeat downloaders .
I do n't really agree with the law myself but this is far from what it 's being portrayed as here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that it seems no-one has read TFA.
I know I know...This isn't some compensation package for the **AA, it's about the cost of implementing an anti-piracy law for persistent repeat downloaders.
I don't really agree with the law myself but this is far from what it's being portrayed as here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581222</id>
	<title>Obvious shakedown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262095860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>is obvious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581910</id>
	<title>How should they change the business model?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262101680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how should they "change their business model to move with the times?"  And what other industry similar to music has already done this?  People say all the time that the music industry is "just going to have to change their business model."</p><p>Ok<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so HOW?</p><p>I'm seriously looking for input and ideas here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how should they " change their business model to move with the times ?
" And what other industry similar to music has already done this ?
People say all the time that the music industry is " just going to have to change their business model .
" Ok ... so HOW ? I 'm seriously looking for input and ideas here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how should they "change their business model to move with the times?
"  And what other industry similar to music has already done this?
People say all the time that the music industry is "just going to have to change their business model.
"Ok ... so HOW?I'm seriously looking for input and ideas here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30637872</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1231009200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet the media industry has cut a deal with governments where they get a cut of the 'tax'. This is just revenue making. I hate capitalism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet the media industry has cut a deal with governments where they get a cut of the 'tax' .
This is just revenue making .
I hate capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet the media industry has cut a deal with governments where they get a cut of the 'tax'.
This is just revenue making.
I hate capitalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580840</id>
	<title>Re:I just wonder...</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1262090820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zero, this is how much mandatory anti-piracy measures will cost the UK internet industry, not some tax fund being paid to labels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zero , this is how much mandatory anti-piracy measures will cost the UK internet industry , not some tax fund being paid to labels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zero, this is how much mandatory anti-piracy measures will cost the UK internet industry, not some tax fund being paid to labels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579806</id>
	<title>Suckers</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1262117280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meanwhile in Asia where I live (and where most of the piracy happens) I happily download as much as I want. Thanks for subsidizing me UK citizens!</p><p>This is only important to the UK government because the they don't have any industry left. Everything in the UK is service based so without patents, copyright, etc they'd be a pathetic nation of unemployed losers who are too snobby to take lower class jobs. oh wait!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile in Asia where I live ( and where most of the piracy happens ) I happily download as much as I want .
Thanks for subsidizing me UK citizens ! This is only important to the UK government because the they do n't have any industry left .
Everything in the UK is service based so without patents , copyright , etc they 'd be a pathetic nation of unemployed losers who are too snobby to take lower class jobs .
oh wait !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile in Asia where I live (and where most of the piracy happens) I happily download as much as I want.
Thanks for subsidizing me UK citizens!This is only important to the UK government because the they don't have any industry left.
Everything in the UK is service based so without patents, copyright, etc they'd be a pathetic nation of unemployed losers who are too snobby to take lower class jobs.
oh wait!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580868</id>
	<title>Well if they are going charge piracy fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262091120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>might as well add in non-murder surcharges and pre-rape taxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>might as well add in non-murder surcharges and pre-rape taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>might as well add in non-murder surcharges and pre-rape taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581016</id>
	<title>Re:I just wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262092860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Presumably you didn't even read the article, or think too much about the summary. This is NOT about a tax to support artists, it is the cost the ISP's will have in putting measures in place - and those costs will be borne by their customers.
<br> <br>
Maybe you are taking it too it's logical conclusion (if this stops filesharing in the UK, then how much of the extra revenue will artists see). So maybe I am being harsh, in which case sorry. But I don't think that is the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably you did n't even read the article , or think too much about the summary .
This is NOT about a tax to support artists , it is the cost the ISP 's will have in putting measures in place - and those costs will be borne by their customers .
Maybe you are taking it too it 's logical conclusion ( if this stops filesharing in the UK , then how much of the extra revenue will artists see ) .
So maybe I am being harsh , in which case sorry .
But I do n't think that is the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably you didn't even read the article, or think too much about the summary.
This is NOT about a tax to support artists, it is the cost the ISP's will have in putting measures in place - and those costs will be borne by their customers.
Maybe you are taking it too it's logical conclusion (if this stops filesharing in the UK, then how much of the extra revenue will artists see).
So maybe I am being harsh, in which case sorry.
But I don't think that is the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580050</id>
	<title>Re:Great!</title>
	<author>dintech</author>
	<datestamp>1262077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the added tax makes the product more expensive and less attractive to buy. Vicious cycle maybe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the added tax makes the product more expensive and less attractive to buy .
Vicious cycle maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the added tax makes the product more expensive and less attractive to buy.
Vicious cycle maybe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583432</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1262109960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do wonder what sort of government actions would it take to start an armed revolution.  The danger isn't from copyright laws but what they enable.  You might be a pirate so we have to filter everything on the internet!  You might be a pirate so we have to record all communications!  Then, if/when elections are ignored or seen to be a farce, what then?</p><p>I know it sounds a bit much but it rarely seems like the people at the top are there for the citizens and all too often are shown to be in the pocket of corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do wonder what sort of government actions would it take to start an armed revolution .
The danger is n't from copyright laws but what they enable .
You might be a pirate so we have to filter everything on the internet !
You might be a pirate so we have to record all communications !
Then , if/when elections are ignored or seen to be a farce , what then ? I know it sounds a bit much but it rarely seems like the people at the top are there for the citizens and all too often are shown to be in the pocket of corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do wonder what sort of government actions would it take to start an armed revolution.
The danger isn't from copyright laws but what they enable.
You might be a pirate so we have to filter everything on the internet!
You might be a pirate so we have to record all communications!
Then, if/when elections are ignored or seen to be a farce, what then?I know it sounds a bit much but it rarely seems like the people at the top are there for the citizens and all too often are shown to be in the pocket of corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581688</id>
	<title>anyone else misread the title?</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1262099880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it said 'to pay for online PRIVACY'</p><p>and you know, that seems very 'governmental' and so I thought 'interesting, they now want to charge you for your privacy'.</p><p>of course it was a mis-read.</p><p>or, was it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it said 'to pay for online PRIVACY'and you know , that seems very 'governmental ' and so I thought 'interesting , they now want to charge you for your privacy'.of course it was a mis-read.or , was it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it said 'to pay for online PRIVACY'and you know, that seems very 'governmental' and so I thought 'interesting, they now want to charge you for your privacy'.of course it was a mis-read.or, was it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580268</id>
	<title>Hasty Generalization at work (for you and me!)</title>
	<author>neurosine</author>
	<datestamp>1262081640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, because the general public should pay for the crimes of the public at large. It seems to me that people are going to copy information, and we're taking away a great deal from legitimate information sharing to satisfy the demands of some very moneyed interests. This isn't right, of course. It seems to be becoming the way of things though. It's also a great way of taking power away from people and giving it to wealthy organizations. They are sad because they lost money they pretended they could have made in some lab conditions. As long as the governments get a share...hey...that's better for everyone...yeah?
No.
But if we pretend hard enough and negotiate the terrain we can laugh nervously and talk about how this utter waste of resources has bought about a better tomorrow.
If we don't they'll find out we may have downloaded a song or a show.
That would really be tragic and potentially ruin our lives.
Ironic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because the general public should pay for the crimes of the public at large .
It seems to me that people are going to copy information , and we 're taking away a great deal from legitimate information sharing to satisfy the demands of some very moneyed interests .
This is n't right , of course .
It seems to be becoming the way of things though .
It 's also a great way of taking power away from people and giving it to wealthy organizations .
They are sad because they lost money they pretended they could have made in some lab conditions .
As long as the governments get a share...hey...that 's better for everyone...yeah ?
No . But if we pretend hard enough and negotiate the terrain we can laugh nervously and talk about how this utter waste of resources has bought about a better tomorrow .
If we do n't they 'll find out we may have downloaded a song or a show .
That would really be tragic and potentially ruin our lives .
Ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because the general public should pay for the crimes of the public at large.
It seems to me that people are going to copy information, and we're taking away a great deal from legitimate information sharing to satisfy the demands of some very moneyed interests.
This isn't right, of course.
It seems to be becoming the way of things though.
It's also a great way of taking power away from people and giving it to wealthy organizations.
They are sad because they lost money they pretended they could have made in some lab conditions.
As long as the governments get a share...hey...that's better for everyone...yeah?
No.
But if we pretend hard enough and negotiate the terrain we can laugh nervously and talk about how this utter waste of resources has bought about a better tomorrow.
If we don't they'll find out we may have downloaded a song or a show.
That would really be tragic and potentially ruin our lives.
Ironic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1262078640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Soap, ballot, ammo.  So are you guys in the UK on ammo yet?  Pretty goddamn close here in the US (for me anyway).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soap , ballot , ammo .
So are you guys in the UK on ammo yet ?
Pretty goddamn close here in the US ( for me anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soap, ballot, ammo.
So are you guys in the UK on ammo yet?
Pretty goddamn close here in the US (for me anyway).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583680</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1262111160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I know that you're a USian...."</i> <p>
That's <b>American</b> we prefer to be called Americans....we've had the name for a couple hundred years you know, and we still like to have it used to describe us.</p><p>
Thanks, and have a great day.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I know that you 're a USian.... " That 's American we prefer to be called Americans....we 've had the name for a couple hundred years you know , and we still like to have it used to describe us .
Thanks , and have a great day .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I know that you're a USian...." 
That's American we prefer to be called Americans....we've had the name for a couple hundred years you know, and we still like to have it used to describe us.
Thanks, and have a great day.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30591728</id>
	<title>Re:Good example of piracy versus robbery</title>
	<author>ranulf</author>
	<datestamp>1259838120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, that is not robbery, that is theft. Robbery is taking of property <b>by violent means or threat of violence</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that is not robbery , that is theft .
Robbery is taking of property by violent means or threat of violence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that is not robbery, that is theft.
Robbery is taking of property by violent means or threat of violence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580024</id>
	<title>ok...</title>
	<author>sixtuslab</author>
	<datestamp>1262120100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just convinces me to get a dozen 100 TB HD's and dl the whole internet, all apps, albums and dvd rips that come out. I'll sell them to you when it all blows up =)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just convinces me to get a dozen 100 TB HD 's and dl the whole internet , all apps , albums and dvd rips that come out .
I 'll sell them to you when it all blows up = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just convinces me to get a dozen 100 TB HD's and dl the whole internet, all apps, albums and dvd rips that come out.
I'll sell them to you when it all blows up =)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585854</id>
	<title>Re:Know your enemy</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1262077860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was with you until "sheeple". Voters don't agree with this stuff. They just aren't provided the tools to prevent them, by which I mean decent politicians. (I know: impossible.)</p><p>There are plenty of other taxes which say they'll pay for one thing and then are raided by entirely different budgets. The UK Road Fund Tax is #1. The UK TV license is another.</p><p>I'm not sure how well targetted the funds collected by similar Netherlands taxes are, but I'd be interested in finding out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was with you until " sheeple " .
Voters do n't agree with this stuff .
They just are n't provided the tools to prevent them , by which I mean decent politicians .
( I know : impossible .
) There are plenty of other taxes which say they 'll pay for one thing and then are raided by entirely different budgets .
The UK Road Fund Tax is # 1 .
The UK TV license is another.I 'm not sure how well targetted the funds collected by similar Netherlands taxes are , but I 'd be interested in finding out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was with you until "sheeple".
Voters don't agree with this stuff.
They just aren't provided the tools to prevent them, by which I mean decent politicians.
(I know: impossible.
)There are plenty of other taxes which say they'll pay for one thing and then are raided by entirely different budgets.
The UK Road Fund Tax is #1.
The UK TV license is another.I'm not sure how well targetted the funds collected by similar Netherlands taxes are, but I'd be interested in finding out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581214</id>
	<title>Re:Good example of piracy versus robbery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262095860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest you look up the legal definition of piracy!!!</p><blockquote><div><p>Piracy consists of any of the following acts:</p><p>(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:</p><p>(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;</p><p>(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;</p><p>(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;</p><p>(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).<br><i>Article 100 - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea</i></p></div></blockquote><p>What you have described is copyright infringement, an offence that bears practically no resemblance to the offence of piracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest you look up the legal definition of piracy ! !
! Piracy consists of any of the following acts : ( a ) any illegal acts of violence or detention , or any act of depredation , committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft , and directed : ( i ) on the high seas , against another ship or aircraft , or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft ; ( ii ) against a ship , aircraft , persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State ; ( b ) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft ; ( c ) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph ( a ) or ( b ) .Article 100 - United Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaWhat you have described is copyright infringement , an offence that bears practically no resemblance to the offence of piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest you look up the legal definition of piracy!!
!Piracy consists of any of the following acts:(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).Article 100 - United Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaWhat you have described is copyright infringement, an offence that bears practically no resemblance to the offence of piracy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584176</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite..</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262113440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They found that their old business model wasn't profitable enough</i> <br> <br>There "old" business model is highly profitable. Especially given that there's a recession on and plenty of businesses (including some well known ones) are going bankrupt.<br> <br> <i>so they switched to the far more lucrative business model of convincing the government to subsidize them.</i> <br> <br>If the British government were sane they'd use this as an excuse to nationalise them. Far better to own profitable businesses than the likes of Northern Rock...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They found that their old business model was n't profitable enough There " old " business model is highly profitable .
Especially given that there 's a recession on and plenty of businesses ( including some well known ones ) are going bankrupt .
so they switched to the far more lucrative business model of convincing the government to subsidize them .
If the British government were sane they 'd use this as an excuse to nationalise them .
Far better to own profitable businesses than the likes of Northern Rock.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They found that their old business model wasn't profitable enough  There "old" business model is highly profitable.
Especially given that there's a recession on and plenty of businesses (including some well known ones) are going bankrupt.
so they switched to the far more lucrative business model of convincing the government to subsidize them.
If the British government were sane they'd use this as an excuse to nationalise them.
Far better to own profitable businesses than the likes of Northern Rock...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581534</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1262098740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The main cost as ever is promotion"</p><p>Which is where I think the future lies for record labels.  Instead of being companies that sign artists up to copyright-stealing contracts, controlling (or attempting to control) distribution and making all arrangements for recording, pressing, etc, labels will be glorified ad agencies.  Band X will sign up with Label Y to promote their new album.  Label Y will, for a cut of the sales or for a set fee, spread the word about the new album.  If Band X is unhappy with Label Y's work, they'll leave (retaining their own copyrights) and go to Label Z instead.  Of course, this will mean that the size of the labels will contract greatly.  Especially when talking about the Big Labels.  They'll fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening, but it is nearly inevitable.  (They might be able to stop it by buying legislation, but that's about their only way off this path.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The main cost as ever is promotion " Which is where I think the future lies for record labels .
Instead of being companies that sign artists up to copyright-stealing contracts , controlling ( or attempting to control ) distribution and making all arrangements for recording , pressing , etc , labels will be glorified ad agencies .
Band X will sign up with Label Y to promote their new album .
Label Y will , for a cut of the sales or for a set fee , spread the word about the new album .
If Band X is unhappy with Label Y 's work , they 'll leave ( retaining their own copyrights ) and go to Label Z instead .
Of course , this will mean that the size of the labels will contract greatly .
Especially when talking about the Big Labels .
They 'll fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening , but it is nearly inevitable .
( They might be able to stop it by buying legislation , but that 's about their only way off this path .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The main cost as ever is promotion"Which is where I think the future lies for record labels.
Instead of being companies that sign artists up to copyright-stealing contracts, controlling (or attempting to control) distribution and making all arrangements for recording, pressing, etc, labels will be glorified ad agencies.
Band X will sign up with Label Y to promote their new album.
Label Y will, for a cut of the sales or for a set fee, spread the word about the new album.
If Band X is unhappy with Label Y's work, they'll leave (retaining their own copyrights) and go to Label Z instead.
Of course, this will mean that the size of the labels will contract greatly.
Especially when talking about the Big Labels.
They'll fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening, but it is nearly inevitable.
(They might be able to stop it by buying legislation, but that's about their only way off this path.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30586030</id>
	<title>Insurance</title>
	<author>Master Moose</author>
	<datestamp>1262078580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have household contents insurance.</p><p>I pay a premium to my insurance company who promise to indemnify me against the PHYSICAL LOSS of my PROPERTY under certain circumstances. Robbery is included.</p><p>As everything is insurable for the right price (Policies for alien abduction/ singers bottoms) maybe the recording/movie industry should look to insure themselves against such potential loss.</p><p>Or do you think that insurance companies would laugh at them when they come to claim that John Smith downloaded a Metallica record asking them to prove where loss took place?</p><p>The financial crisis of the last year and a bit was caused in a big part by much the same thinking that the record companies have now. .</p><p>The property market was in a boom. Everyone wanted a house (2 or three) because the value of these things just kept rising. People/banks and companies were highly over-inflating what a house/section or development was going to be worth to the potential buyers.</p><p>For a while they were right, but then something happened. The market decided that these things were not worth the over inflated cost. Suddenly People had debt which outweighed the "potential value" of their properties. And although John Smith still had a house. He no longer has the potential value he thought he was going to get for the house. John is now upset. He has his house, but no one is wiling to pay for it what he was hoping they would be willing to pay for it when the market was in boom. The market has changed.</p><p>The recording industry need to realise that the Market has changed. Distribution channels have changed. and the Potential Value they put on a copy of their product is not what they once thought it was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have household contents insurance.I pay a premium to my insurance company who promise to indemnify me against the PHYSICAL LOSS of my PROPERTY under certain circumstances .
Robbery is included.As everything is insurable for the right price ( Policies for alien abduction/ singers bottoms ) maybe the recording/movie industry should look to insure themselves against such potential loss.Or do you think that insurance companies would laugh at them when they come to claim that John Smith downloaded a Metallica record asking them to prove where loss took place ? The financial crisis of the last year and a bit was caused in a big part by much the same thinking that the record companies have now .
.The property market was in a boom .
Everyone wanted a house ( 2 or three ) because the value of these things just kept rising .
People/banks and companies were highly over-inflating what a house/section or development was going to be worth to the potential buyers.For a while they were right , but then something happened .
The market decided that these things were not worth the over inflated cost .
Suddenly People had debt which outweighed the " potential value " of their properties .
And although John Smith still had a house .
He no longer has the potential value he thought he was going to get for the house .
John is now upset .
He has his house , but no one is wiling to pay for it what he was hoping they would be willing to pay for it when the market was in boom .
The market has changed.The recording industry need to realise that the Market has changed .
Distribution channels have changed .
and the Potential Value they put on a copy of their product is not what they once thought it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have household contents insurance.I pay a premium to my insurance company who promise to indemnify me against the PHYSICAL LOSS of my PROPERTY under certain circumstances.
Robbery is included.As everything is insurable for the right price (Policies for alien abduction/ singers bottoms) maybe the recording/movie industry should look to insure themselves against such potential loss.Or do you think that insurance companies would laugh at them when they come to claim that John Smith downloaded a Metallica record asking them to prove where loss took place?The financial crisis of the last year and a bit was caused in a big part by much the same thinking that the record companies have now.
.The property market was in a boom.
Everyone wanted a house (2 or three) because the value of these things just kept rising.
People/banks and companies were highly over-inflating what a house/section or development was going to be worth to the potential buyers.For a while they were right, but then something happened.
The market decided that these things were not worth the over inflated cost.
Suddenly People had debt which outweighed the "potential value" of their properties.
And although John Smith still had a house.
He no longer has the potential value he thought he was going to get for the house.
John is now upset.
He has his house, but no one is wiling to pay for it what he was hoping they would be willing to pay for it when the market was in boom.
The market has changed.The recording industry need to realise that the Market has changed.
Distribution channels have changed.
and the Potential Value they put on a copy of their product is not what they once thought it was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581818</id>
	<title>Re:Good example of piracy versus robbery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262100960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same also applies to second hand books - quote from a UK copyright notice on the inside leaf</p><p>"This book shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser"</p><p>So if you lend or borrow a book from a friend then you too are a pirate.</p><p>I wonder what happens when we are all pirates under some law or other ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same also applies to second hand books - quote from a UK copyright notice on the inside leaf " This book shall not , by way of trade or otherwise , be lent , resold , hired out , or otherwise circulated without the publisher 's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition , including this condition , being imposed on the subsequent purchaser " So if you lend or borrow a book from a friend then you too are a pirate.I wonder what happens when we are all pirates under some law or other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same also applies to second hand books - quote from a UK copyright notice on the inside leaf"This book shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser"So if you lend or borrow a book from a friend then you too are a pirate.I wonder what happens when we are all pirates under some law or other ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584460</id>
	<title>Re:Perceived enjoyment.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey dickbutt, it's not about getting free stuff, it's about them charging a fair price for a product that they didn't create.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey dickbutt , it 's not about getting free stuff , it 's about them charging a fair price for a product that they did n't create .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey dickbutt, it's not about getting free stuff, it's about them charging a fair price for a product that they didn't create.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585188</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately it appears that you're right on this one.</p><p>I couldn't find much information on what this bill actually means, so for anyone else in this situation, I've found a breakdown of what the bill means and what it doesn't <a href="http://www.digitalwrong.org/?page\_id=6" title="digitalwrong.org">here</a> [digitalwrong.org]. They did have a load of posts on its passage through parliament etc but they seem to have disappeared - hopefully they'll get everything back up and running soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately it appears that you 're right on this one.I could n't find much information on what this bill actually means , so for anyone else in this situation , I 've found a breakdown of what the bill means and what it does n't here [ digitalwrong.org ] .
They did have a load of posts on its passage through parliament etc but they seem to have disappeared - hopefully they 'll get everything back up and running soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately it appears that you're right on this one.I couldn't find much information on what this bill actually means, so for anyone else in this situation, I've found a breakdown of what the bill means and what it doesn't here [digitalwrong.org].
They did have a load of posts on its passage through parliament etc but they seem to have disappeared - hopefully they'll get everything back up and running soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581246</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262096040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mod this guy up. it's really starting to get to a point where we might have to defend our freedom using ultimate means. Sad thing about this, once the "freedom cells" will start with the violence, politicians/corporations will have it even easier to tighten their grip on us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mod this guy up .
it 's really starting to get to a point where we might have to defend our freedom using ultimate means .
Sad thing about this , once the " freedom cells " will start with the violence , politicians/corporations will have it even easier to tighten their grip on us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod this guy up.
it's really starting to get to a point where we might have to defend our freedom using ultimate means.
Sad thing about this, once the "freedom cells" will start with the violence, politicians/corporations will have it even easier to tighten their grip on us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580740</id>
	<title>Re:true</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1262089440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Piracy is theft</i></p><p>Copyrights are not property, they are special, temporary rights granted by the government for a limited time to encourage particular kinds of activities.  Therefore, copyright violations are not theft.  Furthermore, we as a society get to define what actions constitute a copyright violation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Piracy is theftCopyrights are not property , they are special , temporary rights granted by the government for a limited time to encourage particular kinds of activities .
Therefore , copyright violations are not theft .
Furthermore , we as a society get to define what actions constitute a copyright violation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piracy is theftCopyrights are not property, they are special, temporary rights granted by the government for a limited time to encourage particular kinds of activities.
Therefore, copyright violations are not theft.
Furthermore, we as a society get to define what actions constitute a copyright violation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579850</id>
	<title>Doesnt this make Pirated stuff, now free to all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If everyone is being taxed for the "perceived loss", shouldnt that then make piracy legal? Wouldnt the pirated material being downloaded have been paid for by the people... thus making piracy completely legal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If everyone is being taxed for the " perceived loss " , shouldnt that then make piracy legal ?
Wouldnt the pirated material being downloaded have been paid for by the people... thus making piracy completely legal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everyone is being taxed for the "perceived loss", shouldnt that then make piracy legal?
Wouldnt the pirated material being downloaded have been paid for by the people... thus making piracy completely legal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579974</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heinlein was wrong. The ones who "come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back for their private benefit" don't do it by RIGHTS. They do it because the CAN.</p><p>And yes, they "shouldn't" even if they can, because it's not "right". But they have enough resources and it is they that decides what's right/wrong and what should/shouldn't be done.</p><p>Power always override rights and morals because in the end, actual changes are made by what has been done and what is being done, not what "should" be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heinlein was wrong .
The ones who " come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back for their private benefit " do n't do it by RIGHTS .
They do it because the CAN.And yes , they " should n't " even if they can , because it 's not " right " .
But they have enough resources and it is they that decides what 's right/wrong and what should/should n't be done.Power always override rights and morals because in the end , actual changes are made by what has been done and what is being done , not what " should " be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heinlein was wrong.
The ones who "come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back for their private benefit" don't do it by RIGHTS.
They do it because the CAN.And yes, they "shouldn't" even if they can, because it's not "right".
But they have enough resources and it is they that decides what's right/wrong and what should/shouldn't be done.Power always override rights and morals because in the end, actual changes are made by what has been done and what is being done, not what "should" be done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580406</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262084460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>so when you are in a glass house its a very good idea not to throw stones.</i> </p><p>This assumes that you <i>like</i> living in a glass house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so when you are in a glass house its a very good idea not to throw stones .
This assumes that you like living in a glass house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so when you are in a glass house its a very good idea not to throw stones.
This assumes that you like living in a glass house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585354</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1262119020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can shoot a film (on film) for $7K if you don't blow your money on expensive locations, huge effects, and overpaid actors.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer\_(film)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer\_(film)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can shoot a film ( on film ) for $ 7K if you do n't blow your money on expensive locations , huge effects , and overpaid actors.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer \ _ ( film ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can shoot a film (on film) for $7K if you don't blow your money on expensive locations, huge effects, and overpaid actors.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer\_(film) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584666</id>
	<title>Re:From a staunch anti-piracy supporter...</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1262115780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course you are going to feel that way. These people have basically declared how much profit they want and their crony Mandelson simply takes that money from people who are powerless to stop him. The music industry is purely based on rent-seeking, and the most efficient method of rent-seeking is paying a universally corrupt government to do it for you. Committing what, from your position, must look like an act of economic sabotage is a fairly measured response.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course you are going to feel that way .
These people have basically declared how much profit they want and their crony Mandelson simply takes that money from people who are powerless to stop him .
The music industry is purely based on rent-seeking , and the most efficient method of rent-seeking is paying a universally corrupt government to do it for you .
Committing what , from your position , must look like an act of economic sabotage is a fairly measured response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course you are going to feel that way.
These people have basically declared how much profit they want and their crony Mandelson simply takes that money from people who are powerless to stop him.
The music industry is purely based on rent-seeking, and the most efficient method of rent-seeking is paying a universally corrupt government to do it for you.
Committing what, from your position, must look like an act of economic sabotage is a fairly measured response.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582940</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse. It makes me remember that we haven't hit those points yet so we always have somewhere else to look at whatever policy in practice before we have to deal with it</p></div><p>^^ we have you just dont pay attention http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/440068-MPAA\_Applauds\_Congress\_For\_Anti\_Piracy\_Funding.php sheeple</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU , UK , Australia , or Canada doing something that would be worse .
It makes me remember that we have n't hit those points yet so we always have somewhere else to look at whatever policy in practice before we have to deal with it ^ ^ we have you just dont pay attention http : //www.broadcastingcable.com/article/440068-MPAA \ _Applauds \ _Congress \ _For \ _Anti \ _Piracy \ _Funding.php sheeple</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.
It makes me remember that we haven't hit those points yet so we always have somewhere else to look at whatever policy in practice before we have to deal with it^^ we have you just dont pay attention http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/440068-MPAA\_Applauds\_Congress\_For\_Anti\_Piracy\_Funding.php sheeple
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580290</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>readthemall</author>
	<datestamp>1262081880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With the new world order eliminating the huge production costs (you don't NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with) and distribution costs (you can distribute your songs either for free or for pay online very easily without a middleman), you dont need the big dinosaurs anymore and they are doing everything they can to stop it from happening.</p></div><p>If it is about the music, you are right. When it comes to movies, it is not that simple. Good film cameras, films, lenses, and lightning are expensive, and cannot be substituted with handheld digital cameras.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the new world order eliminating the huge production costs ( you do n't NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore , you can do it in your garage with a PC , some software and some microphones to record with ) and distribution costs ( you can distribute your songs either for free or for pay online very easily without a middleman ) , you dont need the big dinosaurs anymore and they are doing everything they can to stop it from happening.If it is about the music , you are right .
When it comes to movies , it is not that simple .
Good film cameras , films , lenses , and lightning are expensive , and can not be substituted with handheld digital cameras .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the new world order eliminating the huge production costs (you don't NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with) and distribution costs (you can distribute your songs either for free or for pay online very easily without a middleman), you dont need the big dinosaurs anymore and they are doing everything they can to stop it from happening.If it is about the music, you are right.
When it comes to movies, it is not that simple.
Good film cameras, films, lenses, and lightning are expensive, and cannot be substituted with handheld digital cameras.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580774</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>gowen</author>
	<datestamp>1262089920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p> <i>Proposals to suspend the internet connections of those who repeatedly share music and films online will leave consumers with a bill for &pound;500 million, ministers have admitted.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I know that you're a USian and I have a policy against attacking people who do not use English as their primary language but "proposal" does not mean "signed into law".</p></div></blockquote><p>The particular irony here, is that in the rest of the article, no minister admits any such thing.  Hell, no minister is even <b>named</b> in association with such a claim. There's no support in the article for any of the claims in the headlines/opening, or the slashdot article here.  It's a non-article, based on a heady mix of supposition, exaggeration and invention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proposals to suspend the internet connections of those who repeatedly share music and films online will leave consumers with a bill for   500 million , ministers have admitted .
I know that you 're a USian and I have a policy against attacking people who do not use English as their primary language but " proposal " does not mean " signed into law " .The particular irony here , is that in the rest of the article , no minister admits any such thing .
Hell , no minister is even named in association with such a claim .
There 's no support in the article for any of the claims in the headlines/opening , or the slashdot article here .
It 's a non-article , based on a heady mix of supposition , exaggeration and invention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Proposals to suspend the internet connections of those who repeatedly share music and films online will leave consumers with a bill for £500 million, ministers have admitted.
I know that you're a USian and I have a policy against attacking people who do not use English as their primary language but "proposal" does not mean "signed into law".The particular irony here, is that in the rest of the article, no minister admits any such thing.
Hell, no minister is even named in association with such a claim.
There's no support in the article for any of the claims in the headlines/opening, or the slashdot article here.
It's a non-article, based on a heady mix of supposition, exaggeration and invention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580990</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1262092680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you do relise this is the ISP and wholesale industry puff peicethey are  whining that they might have to gasp do somthing and want to push the entire cost onto the consumer and the report is deliberatly vauge to whip up FUD.

they say "the cost of the initial letter-writing campaign, estimated at an extra &pound;1.40 per subscription" while implying this is teh cost for every one when in fact that sounds about right for the cost of sending a letter to an individual whose been caught.

I dont want to get into teh rights and wrongs of dowloading or "stealing" as my mates inn the MU would call it but if theer is to be action the ISP industry will have to man up and bear the cost</htmltext>
<tokenext>you do relise this is the ISP and wholesale industry puff peicethey are whining that they might have to gasp do somthing and want to push the entire cost onto the consumer and the report is deliberatly vauge to whip up FUD .
they say " the cost of the initial letter-writing campaign , estimated at an extra   1.40 per subscription " while implying this is teh cost for every one when in fact that sounds about right for the cost of sending a letter to an individual whose been caught .
I dont want to get into teh rights and wrongs of dowloading or " stealing " as my mates inn the MU would call it but if theer is to be action the ISP industry will have to man up and bear the cost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you do relise this is the ISP and wholesale industry puff peicethey are  whining that they might have to gasp do somthing and want to push the entire cost onto the consumer and the report is deliberatly vauge to whip up FUD.
they say "the cost of the initial letter-writing campaign, estimated at an extra £1.40 per subscription" while implying this is teh cost for every one when in fact that sounds about right for the cost of sending a letter to an individual whose been caught.
I dont want to get into teh rights and wrongs of dowloading or "stealing" as my mates inn the MU would call it but if theer is to be action the ISP industry will have to man up and bear the cost</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006</id>
	<title>They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The content industries will NEVER accept the new world because they know that in the new world, they wont be the king of the hill anymore.<br>Right now in the old world, companies like Sony, Warner, Fox, Universal, Disney, EMI and Paramount are king of the hill.</p><p>With the new world order eliminating the huge production costs (you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with) and distribution costs (you can distribute your songs either for free or for pay online very easily without a middleman), you dont need the big dinosaurs anymore and they are doing everything they can to stop it from happening.</p><p>And unlike previous times when disruptive technologies were invented, those who stand to loose the most have the ear of government and are attempting to outlaw the disruptive technologies BEFORE they become mainstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The content industries will NEVER accept the new world because they know that in the new world , they wont be the king of the hill anymore.Right now in the old world , companies like Sony , Warner , Fox , Universal , Disney , EMI and Paramount are king of the hill.With the new world order eliminating the huge production costs ( you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore , you can do it in your garage with a PC , some software and some microphones to record with ) and distribution costs ( you can distribute your songs either for free or for pay online very easily without a middleman ) , you dont need the big dinosaurs anymore and they are doing everything they can to stop it from happening.And unlike previous times when disruptive technologies were invented , those who stand to loose the most have the ear of government and are attempting to outlaw the disruptive technologies BEFORE they become mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The content industries will NEVER accept the new world because they know that in the new world, they wont be the king of the hill anymore.Right now in the old world, companies like Sony, Warner, Fox, Universal, Disney, EMI and Paramount are king of the hill.With the new world order eliminating the huge production costs (you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with) and distribution costs (you can distribute your songs either for free or for pay online very easily without a middleman), you dont need the big dinosaurs anymore and they are doing everything they can to stop it from happening.And unlike previous times when disruptive technologies were invented, those who stand to loose the most have the ear of government and are attempting to outlaw the disruptive technologies BEFORE they become mainstream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580922</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>jmac\_the\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1262091780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know that you're a USian</p></div><p>Hey moron: There's two countries in the Americas with "United States" in their name. In fact, they share a border. The northern one, the United States of America, is generally called "America" to avoid confusion with the other one. The southern one, the United Mexican States, is generally called "Mexico" for the same reason.
</p><p>
The reason calling citizens of the northern one Americans doesn't really confuse people is that continents haven't historically had governing structures, (and North America doesn't have one now) so the concept of "a citizen of $CONTINENT" is meaningless.
</p><p>
But you knew all that already, and are just a dick on the internet. I hope that's what they deported you to Australia for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that you 're a USianHey moron : There 's two countries in the Americas with " United States " in their name .
In fact , they share a border .
The northern one , the United States of America , is generally called " America " to avoid confusion with the other one .
The southern one , the United Mexican States , is generally called " Mexico " for the same reason .
The reason calling citizens of the northern one Americans does n't really confuse people is that continents have n't historically had governing structures , ( and North America does n't have one now ) so the concept of " a citizen of $ CONTINENT " is meaningless .
But you knew all that already , and are just a dick on the internet .
I hope that 's what they deported you to Australia for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that you're a USianHey moron: There's two countries in the Americas with "United States" in their name.
In fact, they share a border.
The northern one, the United States of America, is generally called "America" to avoid confusion with the other one.
The southern one, the United Mexican States, is generally called "Mexico" for the same reason.
The reason calling citizens of the northern one Americans doesn't really confuse people is that continents haven't historically had governing structures, (and North America doesn't have one now) so the concept of "a citizen of $CONTINENT" is meaningless.
But you knew all that already, and are just a dick on the internet.
I hope that's what they deported you to Australia for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580878</id>
	<title>Piracy as a service business model?</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1262091240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they 'tax piracy' then it must be an act already paid for (i.e. reimbursed), for ANY act of piracy. Therefore it must now be Ok to conduct that piracy for which they are taxing EVERYONE, as opposed to 'taxing' the few who are actually committing that piracy. Since EVERYONE has already 'paid the tax' then by extension it must be OK for EVERYONE to now conduct piracy? After all, you ARE paying for all the piracy now it aren't you? So, now we seem to have a new business model, aka <b>piracy as a service</b>. It must be Ok get out there and commit all the piracy you want! Its already paid for, so there is no guilt trip any more. Just keep your 'tax receipts' just in case you are actually arrested for piracy, and perhaps you can sue the local UK Government for 'double dipping' in court. They can't have it both ways.</p><p>

IANAL, So don't do anything I say here as it's probably illegal just because it was me that said it. I don't personally condone piracy in any form, but then our definitions may differ somewhat. Such as RIAA:'full fledged piracy' v.s. ME: 'just moving music I just paid for to my personal iPod so that I can actually listen to it'. Why that act would be even considered piracy by the RIAA completely alludes any sense of logic. Should they think to 'tax me', then perhaps I would not hesitate to download rather than buying something, since I already paid for it. Hint to RIAA; Be VERY careful what you ask for in legislation. You might just get it, but then you still won't 'get it'. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 'tax piracy ' then it must be an act already paid for ( i.e .
reimbursed ) , for ANY act of piracy .
Therefore it must now be Ok to conduct that piracy for which they are taxing EVERYONE , as opposed to 'taxing ' the few who are actually committing that piracy .
Since EVERYONE has already 'paid the tax ' then by extension it must be OK for EVERYONE to now conduct piracy ?
After all , you ARE paying for all the piracy now it are n't you ?
So , now we seem to have a new business model , aka piracy as a service .
It must be Ok get out there and commit all the piracy you want !
Its already paid for , so there is no guilt trip any more .
Just keep your 'tax receipts ' just in case you are actually arrested for piracy , and perhaps you can sue the local UK Government for 'double dipping ' in court .
They ca n't have it both ways .
IANAL , So do n't do anything I say here as it 's probably illegal just because it was me that said it .
I do n't personally condone piracy in any form , but then our definitions may differ somewhat .
Such as RIAA : 'full fledged piracy ' v.s .
ME : 'just moving music I just paid for to my personal iPod so that I can actually listen to it' .
Why that act would be even considered piracy by the RIAA completely alludes any sense of logic .
Should they think to 'tax me ' , then perhaps I would not hesitate to download rather than buying something , since I already paid for it .
Hint to RIAA ; Be VERY careful what you ask for in legislation .
You might just get it , but then you still wo n't 'get it' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they 'tax piracy' then it must be an act already paid for (i.e.
reimbursed), for ANY act of piracy.
Therefore it must now be Ok to conduct that piracy for which they are taxing EVERYONE, as opposed to 'taxing' the few who are actually committing that piracy.
Since EVERYONE has already 'paid the tax' then by extension it must be OK for EVERYONE to now conduct piracy?
After all, you ARE paying for all the piracy now it aren't you?
So, now we seem to have a new business model, aka piracy as a service.
It must be Ok get out there and commit all the piracy you want!
Its already paid for, so there is no guilt trip any more.
Just keep your 'tax receipts' just in case you are actually arrested for piracy, and perhaps you can sue the local UK Government for 'double dipping' in court.
They can't have it both ways.
IANAL, So don't do anything I say here as it's probably illegal just because it was me that said it.
I don't personally condone piracy in any form, but then our definitions may differ somewhat.
Such as RIAA:'full fledged piracy' v.s.
ME: 'just moving music I just paid for to my personal iPod so that I can actually listen to it'.
Why that act would be even considered piracy by the RIAA completely alludes any sense of logic.
Should they think to 'tax me', then perhaps I would not hesitate to download rather than buying something, since I already paid for it.
Hint to RIAA; Be VERY careful what you ask for in legislation.
You might just get it, but then you still won't 'get it'. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581482</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262098200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there was a typo:<br>"The record and film industries have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses."</p><p>should have read:</p><p>"The JEWS have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses."</p><p>As we all know who runs the record and film industries, and the entire media, and tells our governments what to do...</p><p>"Oy vey! Haven't ve suffered enough?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there was a typo : " The record and film industries have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses .
" should have read : " The JEWS have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses .
" As we all know who runs the record and film industries , and the entire media , and tells our governments what to do... " Oy vey !
Have n't ve suffered enough ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there was a typo:"The record and film industries have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses.
"should have read:"The JEWS have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses.
"As we all know who runs the record and film industries, and the entire media, and tells our governments what to do..."Oy vey!
Haven't ve suffered enough?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580230</id>
	<title>Be careful when you play with matches...</title>
	<author>deblau</author>
	<datestamp>1262080860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or you might get burned.  It's not a far step from "the taxpayers are footing a massive bill" to "we should therefore nationalise the groups getting the money."  The UK already has a television license, a music and movie license isn't beyond the pale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you might get burned .
It 's not a far step from " the taxpayers are footing a massive bill " to " we should therefore nationalise the groups getting the money .
" The UK already has a television license , a music and movie license is n't beyond the pale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you might get burned.
It's not a far step from "the taxpayers are footing a massive bill" to "we should therefore nationalise the groups getting the money.
"  The UK already has a television license, a music and movie license isn't beyond the pale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585122</id>
	<title>Re:Good example of piracy versus robbery</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The same also applies to second hand books - quote from a UK copyright notice on the inside leaf
<br>
"This book shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser"
<br>
So if you lend or borrow a book from a friend then you too are a pirate.</i> <br> <br>Only if it's been rebound. It's probably more aimed at libraries. Though laminating covers appears to be ok.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same also applies to second hand books - quote from a UK copyright notice on the inside leaf " This book shall not , by way of trade or otherwise , be lent , resold , hired out , or otherwise circulated without the publisher 's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition , including this condition , being imposed on the subsequent purchaser " So if you lend or borrow a book from a friend then you too are a pirate .
Only if it 's been rebound .
It 's probably more aimed at libraries .
Though laminating covers appears to be ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same also applies to second hand books - quote from a UK copyright notice on the inside leaf

"This book shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser"

So if you lend or borrow a book from a friend then you too are a pirate.
Only if it's been rebound.
It's probably more aimed at libraries.
Though laminating covers appears to be ok.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580254</id>
	<title>As much as they want...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262081460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they're already paying for it then the citizens of the UK should be able to pirate as much as they want. The record companies shouldn't be able to double dip like this...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're already paying for it then the citizens of the UK should be able to pirate as much as they want .
The record companies should n't be able to double dip like this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're already paying for it then the citizens of the UK should be able to pirate as much as they want.
The record companies shouldn't be able to double dip like this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579836</id>
	<title>tax?</title>
	<author>phalse phace</author>
	<datestamp>1262117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I pay this "tax," then that means that I'm free to download to my heart's content, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I pay this " tax , " then that means that I 'm free to download to my heart 's content , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I pay this "tax," then that means that I'm free to download to my heart's content, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584236</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1262113740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please point out an independent artist who has achieved the same level of success as Taylor Swift, Kenny Chesney, Kid Rock, or Beyonce.</p><p>Until you can, this entire post is just a bunch of hot air.  Artists are going to continue to sign deals with big labels because that is the only way to achieve lasting world-wide fame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please point out an independent artist who has achieved the same level of success as Taylor Swift , Kenny Chesney , Kid Rock , or Beyonce.Until you can , this entire post is just a bunch of hot air .
Artists are going to continue to sign deals with big labels because that is the only way to achieve lasting world-wide fame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please point out an independent artist who has achieved the same level of success as Taylor Swift, Kenny Chesney, Kid Rock, or Beyonce.Until you can, this entire post is just a bunch of hot air.
Artists are going to continue to sign deals with big labels because that is the only way to achieve lasting world-wide fame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580320</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262082420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but copyright law really isn't something I am prepared to go to an armed conflict and kill people over...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but copyright law really is n't something I am prepared to go to an armed conflict and kill people over.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but copyright law really isn't something I am prepared to go to an armed conflict and kill people over...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584992</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262117340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, digital technology is reducing the cost of movie production. No, you can't do it with a handycam from Best Buy, but you can do it with a professional grade digital camera and skip the high costs of film processing, duplication, and archiving.</p><p>Even before that, history has shown that some of the lowest budget films have the highest gross and the biggest buzz.</p><p>Things cost so much because they have a cost is no object mentality and their vendors know it.</p><p>Of course, a lot of the high costs are also tricky accounting in overdrive. If the production company can't find a rabbit hole to stuff a few hundred million dollars down, they might actually have to pay a percentage to other people, so they "spend" it on vastly overpriced services from companies they "just happen" to own that "just happen" to be hugely profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , digital technology is reducing the cost of movie production .
No , you ca n't do it with a handycam from Best Buy , but you can do it with a professional grade digital camera and skip the high costs of film processing , duplication , and archiving.Even before that , history has shown that some of the lowest budget films have the highest gross and the biggest buzz.Things cost so much because they have a cost is no object mentality and their vendors know it.Of course , a lot of the high costs are also tricky accounting in overdrive .
If the production company ca n't find a rabbit hole to stuff a few hundred million dollars down , they might actually have to pay a percentage to other people , so they " spend " it on vastly overpriced services from companies they " just happen " to own that " just happen " to be hugely profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, digital technology is reducing the cost of movie production.
No, you can't do it with a handycam from Best Buy, but you can do it with a professional grade digital camera and skip the high costs of film processing, duplication, and archiving.Even before that, history has shown that some of the lowest budget films have the highest gross and the biggest buzz.Things cost so much because they have a cost is no object mentality and their vendors know it.Of course, a lot of the high costs are also tricky accounting in overdrive.
If the production company can't find a rabbit hole to stuff a few hundred million dollars down, they might actually have to pay a percentage to other people, so they "spend" it on vastly overpriced services from companies they "just happen" to own that "just happen" to be hugely profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580658</id>
	<title>Re:Did anyone RTFA?</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262088180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't say "&pound;25 per household that need to receive a notice", they said "&pound;25 per household".</p><p>That means an extra &pound;4 a month for every household. If you're paying for broadband now because it costs "less than &pound;40 a month", and you get threatened with cutoff whenever you actually <em>use</em> that broadband (BBC iPlayer released for Wii last month, this month I get threats of disconnection), how many lower-income families are going to keep paying more for no reason when it crosses that threshold?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't say "   25 per household that need to receive a notice " , they said "   25 per household " .That means an extra   4 a month for every household .
If you 're paying for broadband now because it costs " less than   40 a month " , and you get threatened with cutoff whenever you actually use that broadband ( BBC iPlayer released for Wii last month , this month I get threats of disconnection ) , how many lower-income families are going to keep paying more for no reason when it crosses that threshold ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't say "£25 per household that need to receive a notice", they said "£25 per household".That means an extra £4 a month for every household.
If you're paying for broadband now because it costs "less than £40 a month", and you get threatened with cutoff whenever you actually use that broadband (BBC iPlayer released for Wii last month, this month I get threats of disconnection), how many lower-income families are going to keep paying more for no reason when it crosses that threshold?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581602</id>
	<title>Mandelson's private police</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1262099340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It gives the appearance that if enough cash is paid into Mandelson's pocket, a corporation can have their own state backed 'enforcers' with the sole purpose of protecting a revenue stream. All at the tax-payers expense. It rather makes a sham of the governments consultation in which people were sympathetic but clearly showed the recording industry is not a special case and should sort out its own problems.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It gives the appearance that if enough cash is paid into Mandelson 's pocket , a corporation can have their own state backed 'enforcers ' with the sole purpose of protecting a revenue stream .
All at the tax-payers expense .
It rather makes a sham of the governments consultation in which people were sympathetic but clearly showed the recording industry is not a special case and should sort out its own problems.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gives the appearance that if enough cash is paid into Mandelson's pocket, a corporation can have their own state backed 'enforcers' with the sole purpose of protecting a revenue stream.
All at the tax-payers expense.
It rather makes a sham of the governments consultation in which people were sympathetic but clearly showed the recording industry is not a special case and should sort out its own problems.Phillip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580726</id>
	<title>Re:Good example of piracy versus robbery</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1262089140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With piracy, a company sells a copy and the buyer makes a copy for someone else(and whether that someone else would have bought a copy without piracy is debatable). If I buy a 99-cent song and give you a copy, that is "piracy".</p></div><p>If you're a friend of mine, I believe that's actually fair use in some jurisdictions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With piracy , a company sells a copy and the buyer makes a copy for someone else ( and whether that someone else would have bought a copy without piracy is debatable ) .
If I buy a 99-cent song and give you a copy , that is " piracy " .If you 're a friend of mine , I believe that 's actually fair use in some jurisdictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With piracy, a company sells a copy and the buyer makes a copy for someone else(and whether that someone else would have bought a copy without piracy is debatable).
If I buy a 99-cent song and give you a copy, that is "piracy".If you're a friend of mine, I believe that's actually fair use in some jurisdictions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580330</id>
	<title>Save the starving middleman?</title>
	<author>consonant</author>
	<datestamp>1262082600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thus spake a BPI spokesnoodle:<blockquote><div><p>We are confident that those costs will be a mere fraction of the stratospheric sums suggested by some ISPs, and <b>negligibly small when set against their vast annual revenues.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>As opposed to file-sharing taking away 98\% of the meagre pittance earned by the record industries annually? Riiight...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus spake a BPI spokesnoodle : We are confident that those costs will be a mere fraction of the stratospheric sums suggested by some ISPs , and negligibly small when set against their vast annual revenues .
As opposed to file-sharing taking away 98 \ % of the meagre pittance earned by the record industries annually ?
Riiight.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus spake a BPI spokesnoodle:We are confident that those costs will be a mere fraction of the stratospheric sums suggested by some ISPs, and negligibly small when set against their vast annual revenues.
As opposed to file-sharing taking away 98\% of the meagre pittance earned by the record industries annually?
Riiight...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580172</id>
	<title>Summary is Wrong and Dumb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262079600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill is about requiring ISPs to shut off service to repeat copyright infringers, which the ISPs estimate will cost them (and by proxy, consumers) 500 million pounds.</p><p>It's not a "tax" and none of the money is going to subsidise the record and film industries, that's just complete crap from the summary writer, as is the crusty old "update your buisiness model, wah wah wah" copperlite.</p><p>The bill is also completely retarded, but you do no service to your cause by misrepresenting (and apparently, not even understanding) the enemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill is about requiring ISPs to shut off service to repeat copyright infringers , which the ISPs estimate will cost them ( and by proxy , consumers ) 500 million pounds.It 's not a " tax " and none of the money is going to subsidise the record and film industries , that 's just complete crap from the summary writer , as is the crusty old " update your buisiness model , wah wah wah " copperlite.The bill is also completely retarded , but you do no service to your cause by misrepresenting ( and apparently , not even understanding ) the enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill is about requiring ISPs to shut off service to repeat copyright infringers, which the ISPs estimate will cost them (and by proxy, consumers) 500 million pounds.It's not a "tax" and none of the money is going to subsidise the record and film industries, that's just complete crap from the summary writer, as is the crusty old "update your buisiness model, wah wah wah" copperlite.The bill is also completely retarded, but you do no service to your cause by misrepresenting (and apparently, not even understanding) the enemy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581694</id>
	<title>Re:Know your enemy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262099940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does ANY of this surprise you?</p><p>The US has decided, seemingly as a matter of policy, to no longer make "things" anymore.  We have outsourced our steel industry, our textile industry, our electronics industry, our automotive industry (recent payoffs to the two of crippled three notwithstanding), and are in the process of outsourcing our aviation industry...</p><p>When the US as a country made physical "things", protections against theft were fairly simple.  Now that we are a service (for the lower class) and idea (for the upper class) economy, what is produced is so much more ephemeral that it pretty much demands draconian efforts to extract any economic rent from the greater world economy.</p><p>These efforts are nothing more than the logical outgrowth of the decision to shift the US economy from production to services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does ANY of this surprise you ? The US has decided , seemingly as a matter of policy , to no longer make " things " anymore .
We have outsourced our steel industry , our textile industry , our electronics industry , our automotive industry ( recent payoffs to the two of crippled three notwithstanding ) , and are in the process of outsourcing our aviation industry...When the US as a country made physical " things " , protections against theft were fairly simple .
Now that we are a service ( for the lower class ) and idea ( for the upper class ) economy , what is produced is so much more ephemeral that it pretty much demands draconian efforts to extract any economic rent from the greater world economy.These efforts are nothing more than the logical outgrowth of the decision to shift the US economy from production to services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does ANY of this surprise you?The US has decided, seemingly as a matter of policy, to no longer make "things" anymore.
We have outsourced our steel industry, our textile industry, our electronics industry, our automotive industry (recent payoffs to the two of crippled three notwithstanding), and are in the process of outsourcing our aviation industry...When the US as a country made physical "things", protections against theft were fairly simple.
Now that we are a service (for the lower class) and idea (for the upper class) economy, what is produced is so much more ephemeral that it pretty much demands draconian efforts to extract any economic rent from the greater world economy.These efforts are nothing more than the logical outgrowth of the decision to shift the US economy from production to services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581200</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>turgid</author>
	<datestamp>1262095740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There hasn't been much of the "soap" part yet. Mainstream media is more interested in who won the dancing and who's "loving" who to bother with trifling matters such as this.
</p><p>Not enough people care because not enough people know what's going on, and they are not likely to find out on their own. People are lazy and stupid.
</p><p>As for the "ballot" part, most people can't even be bothered to do that either.
</p><p>We don't care. We are apathetic. By the way, who is Katie Price having sexual relations with this week?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has n't been much of the " soap " part yet .
Mainstream media is more interested in who won the dancing and who 's " loving " who to bother with trifling matters such as this .
Not enough people care because not enough people know what 's going on , and they are not likely to find out on their own .
People are lazy and stupid .
As for the " ballot " part , most people ca n't even be bothered to do that either .
We do n't care .
We are apathetic .
By the way , who is Katie Price having sexual relations with this week ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There hasn't been much of the "soap" part yet.
Mainstream media is more interested in who won the dancing and who's "loving" who to bother with trifling matters such as this.
Not enough people care because not enough people know what's going on, and they are not likely to find out on their own.
People are lazy and stupid.
As for the "ballot" part, most people can't even be bothered to do that either.
We don't care.
We are apathetic.
By the way, who is Katie Price having sexual relations with this week?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580640</id>
	<title>pay for other peoples theft</title>
	<author>X10</author>
	<datestamp>1262087880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't it make perfect sense to make consumers pay for what other people steal, or are supposed to have stolen? In Holland, you pay a premium on blank cd's, which goes to the music industry because people use cd's to make illegal copies of music. Even a software company that ships their software on cd's, pays for other people copying music illegally. Also in Holland, companies pay a tax on photocopies for other people's illegal photocopies. The taxes and premium don't give you the right to make your own illegal copies, of course. I've been in the situation that my startup company didn't even have a copier, but we still had to pay the illegal copying tax. A friend of mine suggested introducing a "stolen bicycle tax". In Amsterdam, on average a bike is stolen every two years or so, so we should have a tax on new bikes to pay for the stolen bikes.</p><p>These examples are symptoms of a seriously broken copyright system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't it make perfect sense to make consumers pay for what other people steal , or are supposed to have stolen ?
In Holland , you pay a premium on blank cd 's , which goes to the music industry because people use cd 's to make illegal copies of music .
Even a software company that ships their software on cd 's , pays for other people copying music illegally .
Also in Holland , companies pay a tax on photocopies for other people 's illegal photocopies .
The taxes and premium do n't give you the right to make your own illegal copies , of course .
I 've been in the situation that my startup company did n't even have a copier , but we still had to pay the illegal copying tax .
A friend of mine suggested introducing a " stolen bicycle tax " .
In Amsterdam , on average a bike is stolen every two years or so , so we should have a tax on new bikes to pay for the stolen bikes.These examples are symptoms of a seriously broken copyright system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't it make perfect sense to make consumers pay for what other people steal, or are supposed to have stolen?
In Holland, you pay a premium on blank cd's, which goes to the music industry because people use cd's to make illegal copies of music.
Even a software company that ships their software on cd's, pays for other people copying music illegally.
Also in Holland, companies pay a tax on photocopies for other people's illegal photocopies.
The taxes and premium don't give you the right to make your own illegal copies, of course.
I've been in the situation that my startup company didn't even have a copier, but we still had to pay the illegal copying tax.
A friend of mine suggested introducing a "stolen bicycle tax".
In Amsterdam, on average a bike is stolen every two years or so, so we should have a tax on new bikes to pay for the stolen bikes.These examples are symptoms of a seriously broken copyright system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581704</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1262100060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with</i></p><p>I'm on your side and I support your general view, BUT; there's a huge diff between some bleach blonde on a synthesizer and someone with talent playing to real (actual acoustic) instruments.</p><p>I used to love synth music (70's and 80's) but now, its HORRIBLE.  this 'home studio' stuff is full of compression and cheezy 'music' done on entirely electronic and bad sounding synths.</p><p>lets not use THIS as an example of how 'good' music can be done at home.  most home music is junk.  then again, most sony produced music sounds good technically but is devoid of any talent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore , you can do it in your garage with a PC , some software and some microphones to record withI 'm on your side and I support your general view , BUT ; there 's a huge diff between some bleach blonde on a synthesizer and someone with talent playing to real ( actual acoustic ) instruments.I used to love synth music ( 70 's and 80 's ) but now , its HORRIBLE .
this 'home studio ' stuff is full of compression and cheezy 'music ' done on entirely electronic and bad sounding synths.lets not use THIS as an example of how 'good ' music can be done at home .
most home music is junk .
then again , most sony produced music sounds good technically but is devoid of any talent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record withI'm on your side and I support your general view, BUT; there's a huge diff between some bleach blonde on a synthesizer and someone with talent playing to real (actual acoustic) instruments.I used to love synth music (70's and 80's) but now, its HORRIBLE.
this 'home studio' stuff is full of compression and cheezy 'music' done on entirely electronic and bad sounding synths.lets not use THIS as an example of how 'good' music can be done at home.
most home music is junk.
then again, most sony produced music sounds good technically but is devoid of any talent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580020</id>
	<title>Seems like the bill hasn't passed Parliament yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous Froward</author>
	<datestamp>1262120040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can somebody from the UK confirm? From TFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>Mr Petter said that the Bill, which is being rushed through Parliament before the general election next year, had been poorly thought out.</p></div><p>And they're not giving music guys free money (yet). The proposal is about cutting off repeated offenders from the net.
</p><p>
TFA seems to imply that the cost of "identify offenders, notify them, and cut them off" procedure would amount to 500m GPB, though it is not very clear about the numbers and whatnot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody from the UK confirm ?
From TFA : Mr Petter said that the Bill , which is being rushed through Parliament before the general election next year , had been poorly thought out.And they 're not giving music guys free money ( yet ) .
The proposal is about cutting off repeated offenders from the net .
TFA seems to imply that the cost of " identify offenders , notify them , and cut them off " procedure would amount to 500m GPB , though it is not very clear about the numbers and whatnot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody from the UK confirm?
From TFA:Mr Petter said that the Bill, which is being rushed through Parliament before the general election next year, had been poorly thought out.And they're not giving music guys free money (yet).
The proposal is about cutting off repeated offenders from the net.
TFA seems to imply that the cost of "identify offenders, notify them, and cut them off" procedure would amount to 500m GPB, though it is not very clear about the numbers and whatnot.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580822</id>
	<title>NUSPEAK</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1262090520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Piracy  is  what is going around the Red Sea, the Somalia coast and the Indian Ocean <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy</a> [wikipedia.org]. <br>It has nothing to do with copying media. What the entertainments industry are doing is called privateering - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer</a> [wikipedia.org].<br> The original model for the entertainment industry was: entertainers appear live and perform. This had high overheads and physical limitations. <br>The recording model was: mass produce the sound and sell these copies to so many people that they would make more money than anyone could ever imagine and the medium would be so cheap that everyone could afford it and copying it would be pointless. Oops,sorry, they decided to skip the last part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Piracy is what is going around the Red Sea , the Somalia coast and the Indian Ocean http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy [ wikipedia.org ] .
It has nothing to do with copying media .
What the entertainments industry are doing is called privateering - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer [ wikipedia.org ] .
The original model for the entertainment industry was : entertainers appear live and perform .
This had high overheads and physical limitations .
The recording model was : mass produce the sound and sell these copies to so many people that they would make more money than anyone could ever imagine and the medium would be so cheap that everyone could afford it and copying it would be pointless .
Oops,sorry , they decided to skip the last part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piracy  is  what is going around the Red Sea, the Somalia coast and the Indian Ocean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy [wikipedia.org].
It has nothing to do with copying media.
What the entertainments industry are doing is called privateering - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer [wikipedia.org].
The original model for the entertainment industry was: entertainers appear live and perform.
This had high overheads and physical limitations.
The recording model was: mass produce the sound and sell these copies to so many people that they would make more money than anyone could ever imagine and the medium would be so cheap that everyone could afford it and copying it would be pointless.
Oops,sorry, they decided to skip the last part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582442</id>
	<title>Re:Perceived enjoyment.</title>
	<author>Sirusjr</author>
	<datestamp>1262104740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thankfully though, Music is not region encoded, so I can import music from Europe and Japan and not have any difficult playing the CD on my system or ripping it to listen to in lossless for archival purposes.  Sadly, this is not always the case with video games.  Yes I can import games if I want to play the Japanese version - IF it is for the Nintendo DS or Playstation 3.  But most of the time if I want to import a game (that the US branch of various companies refuses to localize) for Xbox 360 or Wii, I have to modify my system, voiding the warranty and making everyone assume I modified it because I am a pirate.  So what happens here?  I have a few imported DS games and tons of imported CDs but am at the mercy of various US publishers to localize, translate and release games from Japanese that I am interested in.  (Although with xbox 360 it is up to the company who releases the game whether or not they want to region code it).

The problem with the way companies are adapting to the systems of online piracy is that when we move to a system dominated by Itunes and other digital download services, the content is limited by region.  Thus I need to have a Japanese credit card or Japanese Itunes card with associated address to sign up for an account and purchase Japanese Itunes exclusive games.  In that instance, the companies are making it so difficult for me to support the content creators that its no wonder I download the same content.

On the other hand, the Anime industry has realized that American consumers want to watch Japanese aired Anime on the same day as it airs in Japan with English subtitles and various sites have sprung up, such as Crunchyroll, where you can pay a monthly fee to get access to HD streams of new release anime with subtitles and support the content creators at the same time.  This is the sort of adaptation these companies should be looking into rather than limiting the reach of their products by region.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully though , Music is not region encoded , so I can import music from Europe and Japan and not have any difficult playing the CD on my system or ripping it to listen to in lossless for archival purposes .
Sadly , this is not always the case with video games .
Yes I can import games if I want to play the Japanese version - IF it is for the Nintendo DS or Playstation 3 .
But most of the time if I want to import a game ( that the US branch of various companies refuses to localize ) for Xbox 360 or Wii , I have to modify my system , voiding the warranty and making everyone assume I modified it because I am a pirate .
So what happens here ?
I have a few imported DS games and tons of imported CDs but am at the mercy of various US publishers to localize , translate and release games from Japanese that I am interested in .
( Although with xbox 360 it is up to the company who releases the game whether or not they want to region code it ) .
The problem with the way companies are adapting to the systems of online piracy is that when we move to a system dominated by Itunes and other digital download services , the content is limited by region .
Thus I need to have a Japanese credit card or Japanese Itunes card with associated address to sign up for an account and purchase Japanese Itunes exclusive games .
In that instance , the companies are making it so difficult for me to support the content creators that its no wonder I download the same content .
On the other hand , the Anime industry has realized that American consumers want to watch Japanese aired Anime on the same day as it airs in Japan with English subtitles and various sites have sprung up , such as Crunchyroll , where you can pay a monthly fee to get access to HD streams of new release anime with subtitles and support the content creators at the same time .
This is the sort of adaptation these companies should be looking into rather than limiting the reach of their products by region .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully though, Music is not region encoded, so I can import music from Europe and Japan and not have any difficult playing the CD on my system or ripping it to listen to in lossless for archival purposes.
Sadly, this is not always the case with video games.
Yes I can import games if I want to play the Japanese version - IF it is for the Nintendo DS or Playstation 3.
But most of the time if I want to import a game (that the US branch of various companies refuses to localize) for Xbox 360 or Wii, I have to modify my system, voiding the warranty and making everyone assume I modified it because I am a pirate.
So what happens here?
I have a few imported DS games and tons of imported CDs but am at the mercy of various US publishers to localize, translate and release games from Japanese that I am interested in.
(Although with xbox 360 it is up to the company who releases the game whether or not they want to region code it).
The problem with the way companies are adapting to the systems of online piracy is that when we move to a system dominated by Itunes and other digital download services, the content is limited by region.
Thus I need to have a Japanese credit card or Japanese Itunes card with associated address to sign up for an account and purchase Japanese Itunes exclusive games.
In that instance, the companies are making it so difficult for me to support the content creators that its no wonder I download the same content.
On the other hand, the Anime industry has realized that American consumers want to watch Japanese aired Anime on the same day as it airs in Japan with English subtitles and various sites have sprung up, such as Crunchyroll, where you can pay a monthly fee to get access to HD streams of new release anime with subtitles and support the content creators at the same time.
This is the sort of adaptation these companies should be looking into rather than limiting the reach of their products by region.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582798</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>AntiDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262106780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  And for the most part, copyright etc really seems a minor point in the greater scheme of things.</p><p>However.....</p><p>Where does copyright have an effect on our lives? Music, film, books - these are the things that greatly colour our view of the world and shape our societies.  For the computer literate, the same goes for access to programs and code.  By locking everything up in the hands of these increasingly amoral companies and syndicates we are allowing them to take control of some of our greatest influences - effectively, they have an overriding influence on the future shape of our society and lifestyles.   And I don't think it will be used for the greater good.</p><p>A world where every morsel of creativity, be it text, sound, image or idea, is locked up, appraised, tracked and charged for is a poor world indeed.</p><p>Yes, yes, I'm dramatising and being melancholy but really, it's all so damn depressing....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
And for the most part , copyright etc really seems a minor point in the greater scheme of things.However.....Where does copyright have an effect on our lives ?
Music , film , books - these are the things that greatly colour our view of the world and shape our societies .
For the computer literate , the same goes for access to programs and code .
By locking everything up in the hands of these increasingly amoral companies and syndicates we are allowing them to take control of some of our greatest influences - effectively , they have an overriding influence on the future shape of our society and lifestyles .
And I do n't think it will be used for the greater good.A world where every morsel of creativity , be it text , sound , image or idea , is locked up , appraised , tracked and charged for is a poor world indeed.Yes , yes , I 'm dramatising and being melancholy but really , it 's all so damn depressing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
And for the most part, copyright etc really seems a minor point in the greater scheme of things.However.....Where does copyright have an effect on our lives?
Music, film, books - these are the things that greatly colour our view of the world and shape our societies.
For the computer literate, the same goes for access to programs and code.
By locking everything up in the hands of these increasingly amoral companies and syndicates we are allowing them to take control of some of our greatest influences - effectively, they have an overriding influence on the future shape of our society and lifestyles.
And I don't think it will be used for the greater good.A world where every morsel of creativity, be it text, sound, image or idea, is locked up, appraised, tracked and charged for is a poor world indeed.Yes, yes, I'm dramatising and being melancholy but really, it's all so damn depressing....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950</id>
	<title>Good example of piracy versus robbery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With piracy, a company sells a copy and the buyer makes a copy for someone else(and whether that someone else would have bought a copy without piracy is debatable). If I buy a 99-cent song and give you a copy, that is "piracy".</p><p>With robbery, someone takes someone else's belongings. If someone takes your money without giving you anything and without your consent, that is "robbery".</p><p>This is robbery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With piracy , a company sells a copy and the buyer makes a copy for someone else ( and whether that someone else would have bought a copy without piracy is debatable ) .
If I buy a 99-cent song and give you a copy , that is " piracy " .With robbery , someone takes someone else 's belongings .
If someone takes your money without giving you anything and without your consent , that is " robbery " .This is robbery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With piracy, a company sells a copy and the buyer makes a copy for someone else(and whether that someone else would have bought a copy without piracy is debatable).
If I buy a 99-cent song and give you a copy, that is "piracy".With robbery, someone takes someone else's belongings.
If someone takes your money without giving you anything and without your consent, that is "robbery".This is robbery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580212</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1262080440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With the new world order eliminating the huge production costs (you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with)</p>  </div><p>I wander why they didn't try to kill those products<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the new world order eliminating the huge production costs ( you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore , you can do it in your garage with a PC , some software and some microphones to record with ) I wander why they did n't try to kill those products .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the new world order eliminating the huge production costs (you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with)  I wander why they didn't try to kill those products .....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584964</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is Wrong and Dumb</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1262117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ISPs are to incur expenditure at the request of and for the benefit of the record and film industries. Just because A isn't handing over cash to B does not mean there is no transaction. It's the same principle as, for example, if a charity wishes to hire a hall for an event and the hall-owner decides to make it free since it's a charity, the charity <a href="http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/investigations/sorp/sorp05docs.asp" title="charity-co...ion.gov.uk">has to</a> [charity-co...ion.gov.uk] record the market rate for the hire as a donation in their accounts.</p><p>As regards tax, "stealth tax" is a common term in the UK (at least in political campaigning and media) for basically anything the government does that has some kind of hidden cost to subjects in order to achieve government objectives. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth\_tax" title="wikipedia.org">Wiki</a> [wikipedia.org] details some relatively clear-cut examples, perhaps the closest is that a large portion of National Lottery income must be spent on things the government is supposed to be paying for (and happily holds itself responsible for any good arising). But in general usage it's applied to literally anything that benefits government at the expense of it's subjects. That it does not appear to be a "tax" is entirely the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs are to incur expenditure at the request of and for the benefit of the record and film industries .
Just because A is n't handing over cash to B does not mean there is no transaction .
It 's the same principle as , for example , if a charity wishes to hire a hall for an event and the hall-owner decides to make it free since it 's a charity , the charity has to [ charity-co...ion.gov.uk ] record the market rate for the hire as a donation in their accounts.As regards tax , " stealth tax " is a common term in the UK ( at least in political campaigning and media ) for basically anything the government does that has some kind of hidden cost to subjects in order to achieve government objectives .
The Wiki [ wikipedia.org ] details some relatively clear-cut examples , perhaps the closest is that a large portion of National Lottery income must be spent on things the government is supposed to be paying for ( and happily holds itself responsible for any good arising ) .
But in general usage it 's applied to literally anything that benefits government at the expense of it 's subjects .
That it does not appear to be a " tax " is entirely the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs are to incur expenditure at the request of and for the benefit of the record and film industries.
Just because A isn't handing over cash to B does not mean there is no transaction.
It's the same principle as, for example, if a charity wishes to hire a hall for an event and the hall-owner decides to make it free since it's a charity, the charity has to [charity-co...ion.gov.uk] record the market rate for the hire as a donation in their accounts.As regards tax, "stealth tax" is a common term in the UK (at least in political campaigning and media) for basically anything the government does that has some kind of hidden cost to subjects in order to achieve government objectives.
The Wiki [wikipedia.org] details some relatively clear-cut examples, perhaps the closest is that a large portion of National Lottery income must be spent on things the government is supposed to be paying for (and happily holds itself responsible for any good arising).
But in general usage it's applied to literally anything that benefits government at the expense of it's subjects.
That it does not appear to be a "tax" is entirely the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30594044</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's paid for, that makes it legal right? That's the way I'd feel if I were paying the taxes. Sounds like the recording industry needs to reverse their campaign and encourage copying to justify higher taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's paid for , that makes it legal right ?
That 's the way I 'd feel if I were paying the taxes .
Sounds like the recording industry needs to reverse their campaign and encourage copying to justify higher taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's paid for, that makes it legal right?
That's the way I'd feel if I were paying the taxes.
Sounds like the recording industry needs to reverse their campaign and encourage copying to justify higher taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580672</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262088420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This assumes that you <i>like</i> living in a glass house.</p></div><p>You can always move and live somewhere else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This assumes that you like living in a glass house.You can always move and live somewhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This assumes that you like living in a glass house.You can always move and live somewhere else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580222</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262080740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unfortunately, america has lost its cowboy spirit. we won't come up with our own simple solution. we'll just copy this oppressive british solution. the tax on recordable media seems like good common sense to me. everyday, i think more and more about moving to canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unfortunately , america has lost its cowboy spirit .
we wo n't come up with our own simple solution .
we 'll just copy this oppressive british solution .
the tax on recordable media seems like good common sense to me .
everyday , i think more and more about moving to canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unfortunately, america has lost its cowboy spirit.
we won't come up with our own simple solution.
we'll just copy this oppressive british solution.
the tax on recordable media seems like good common sense to me.
everyday, i think more and more about moving to canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584428</id>
	<title>Re:Know your enemy</title>
	<author>xerxesVII</author>
	<datestamp>1262114700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like you might have had something interesting to say.</p><p>Too bad you lost me at the word "sheeple".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like you might have had something interesting to say.Too bad you lost me at the word " sheeple " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like you might have had something interesting to say.Too bad you lost me at the word "sheeple".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30588456</id>
	<title>Re:NUSPEAK</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1262089500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The original model for the entertainment industry was: entertainers appear live and perform. This had high overheads and physical limitations.</p></div></blockquote><p>And so they contracted the disease of the British economy; the desire to rid yourself of physical capital ASAP and subsist entirely on rent-seeking and financial services. The notion seems to be that you can generate wealth simply by moving money around, and that actually <i>making shit that is worth something</i> is some kind of old-fashioned socialist nonsense.</p><p>And the motherfuckers in charge can't figure out why we are still in recession whilst western civilisation as a whole is in recovery.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original model for the entertainment industry was : entertainers appear live and perform .
This had high overheads and physical limitations.And so they contracted the disease of the British economy ; the desire to rid yourself of physical capital ASAP and subsist entirely on rent-seeking and financial services .
The notion seems to be that you can generate wealth simply by moving money around , and that actually making shit that is worth something is some kind of old-fashioned socialist nonsense.And the motherfuckers in charge ca n't figure out why we are still in recession whilst western civilisation as a whole is in recovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original model for the entertainment industry was: entertainers appear live and perform.
This had high overheads and physical limitations.And so they contracted the disease of the British economy; the desire to rid yourself of physical capital ASAP and subsist entirely on rent-seeking and financial services.
The notion seems to be that you can generate wealth simply by moving money around, and that actually making shit that is worth something is some kind of old-fashioned socialist nonsense.And the motherfuckers in charge can't figure out why we are still in recession whilst western civilisation as a whole is in recovery.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580696</id>
	<title>Re:Great!</title>
	<author>ZigiSamblak</author>
	<datestamp>1262088780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your post may be modded as funny, but that's exactly the way it works in the Netherlands.<br> <br>

Like somebody from Canada posted above, we too have a tax on recordable media such as CD-R and DVD-R (but no HDD's) which is supposedly paid to recording artists who suffer from illegal copying. It is actually legal in the Netherlands to copy music or video from another source (neighbour, friend, internet) if it is for personal use. Naturally the recording industry association is trying to change the law, but just a few months a great move was made by our government showing that they will not be easily influenced by the media lobby:<br> <br>

They ruled that copying of copyrighted material will be made illegal only when the industry makes content readily available online for a fair price and without any DRM restrictions that would limit the usage of the material. This to me seems the perfect response to the tactics the industry is employing to try to keep their outdated business model alive. If they try to block innovation the consumer will find ways to work around it, the consumer owns the government so it always seems strange to me that in western so-called democratic society the government seems to be protecting the business more from the consumer than the other way round. It also shows the Labour party is far from its original socialist roots, I'm glad I don't have to vote in the British elections!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post may be modded as funny , but that 's exactly the way it works in the Netherlands .
Like somebody from Canada posted above , we too have a tax on recordable media such as CD-R and DVD-R ( but no HDD 's ) which is supposedly paid to recording artists who suffer from illegal copying .
It is actually legal in the Netherlands to copy music or video from another source ( neighbour , friend , internet ) if it is for personal use .
Naturally the recording industry association is trying to change the law , but just a few months a great move was made by our government showing that they will not be easily influenced by the media lobby : They ruled that copying of copyrighted material will be made illegal only when the industry makes content readily available online for a fair price and without any DRM restrictions that would limit the usage of the material .
This to me seems the perfect response to the tactics the industry is employing to try to keep their outdated business model alive .
If they try to block innovation the consumer will find ways to work around it , the consumer owns the government so it always seems strange to me that in western so-called democratic society the government seems to be protecting the business more from the consumer than the other way round .
It also shows the Labour party is far from its original socialist roots , I 'm glad I do n't have to vote in the British elections !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post may be modded as funny, but that's exactly the way it works in the Netherlands.
Like somebody from Canada posted above, we too have a tax on recordable media such as CD-R and DVD-R (but no HDD's) which is supposedly paid to recording artists who suffer from illegal copying.
It is actually legal in the Netherlands to copy music or video from another source (neighbour, friend, internet) if it is for personal use.
Naturally the recording industry association is trying to change the law, but just a few months a great move was made by our government showing that they will not be easily influenced by the media lobby: 

They ruled that copying of copyrighted material will be made illegal only when the industry makes content readily available online for a fair price and without any DRM restrictions that would limit the usage of the material.
This to me seems the perfect response to the tactics the industry is employing to try to keep their outdated business model alive.
If they try to block innovation the consumer will find ways to work around it, the consumer owns the government so it always seems strange to me that in western so-called democratic society the government seems to be protecting the business more from the consumer than the other way round.
It also shows the Labour party is far from its original socialist roots, I'm glad I don't have to vote in the British elections!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792</id>
	<title>Not quite..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262116920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times, and change their business models.</p></div></blockquote><p> On the contrary.  They found that their old business model wasn't profitable enough so they switched to the far more lucrative business model of convincing the government to subsidize them.  With the old model people could vote with their dollars (including piracy) but this new model removes all of those pesky market forces entirely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times , and change their business models .
On the contrary .
They found that their old business model was n't profitable enough so they switched to the far more lucrative business model of convincing the government to subsidize them .
With the old model people could vote with their dollars ( including piracy ) but this new model removes all of those pesky market forces entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times, and change their business models.
On the contrary.
They found that their old business model wasn't profitable enough so they switched to the far more lucrative business model of convincing the government to subsidize them.
With the old model people could vote with their dollars (including piracy) but this new model removes all of those pesky market forces entirely.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30587848</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262086560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing being worse, does not make the other thing good. Sorry to break your illusion.</p><p>It&rsquo;s like, you are at -5, and are now happy because there&rsquo;s a -7... while you&rsquo;re still at -5. Not a 0.</p><p>Wanna found a new country? We buy ourselves an island with good connections to the outside world, and try it out. If it fails, we still got more experience in those months / that year, than others got in their whole lives.</p><p>Man, I know so many people who would do this with me *right now*. Except that we all somehow seem to not have the balls to *actually* do it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( Damn inertia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing being worse , does not make the other thing good .
Sorry to break your illusion.It    s like , you are at -5 , and are now happy because there    s a -7... while you    re still at -5 .
Not a 0.Wan na found a new country ?
We buy ourselves an island with good connections to the outside world , and try it out .
If it fails , we still got more experience in those months / that year , than others got in their whole lives.Man , I know so many people who would do this with me * right now * .
Except that we all somehow seem to not have the balls to * actually * do it .
: ( Damn inertia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing being worse, does not make the other thing good.
Sorry to break your illusion.It’s like, you are at -5, and are now happy because there’s a -7... while you’re still at -5.
Not a 0.Wanna found a new country?
We buy ourselves an island with good connections to the outside world, and try it out.
If it fails, we still got more experience in those months / that year, than others got in their whole lives.Man, I know so many people who would do this with me *right now*.
Except that we all somehow seem to not have the balls to *actually* do it.
:( Damn inertia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580718</id>
	<title>Re:tax?</title>
	<author>Martz</author>
	<datestamp>1262089020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So are seedboxes going to cause entire data centers or hosting providers to be disconnected? Users in the closed tracker communities pay for seedboxes at remote hosting facilities to help boost speeds and their ratio and they could single handily cause down time or disruption to 1000s of users if this laws consequences was applied to them.</p><p>My guess is that if this law goes through then seedboxes would become even more popular. Seed from the remote box, and VPN between the box and the home user. It has to be a much safer option already... bandwidth is cheap and disk space is always getting cheaper.</p><p>What about public WiFi projects and airports, hotels etc? As usual there are some fringe cases where this law just doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So are seedboxes going to cause entire data centers or hosting providers to be disconnected ?
Users in the closed tracker communities pay for seedboxes at remote hosting facilities to help boost speeds and their ratio and they could single handily cause down time or disruption to 1000s of users if this laws consequences was applied to them.My guess is that if this law goes through then seedboxes would become even more popular .
Seed from the remote box , and VPN between the box and the home user .
It has to be a much safer option already... bandwidth is cheap and disk space is always getting cheaper.What about public WiFi projects and airports , hotels etc ?
As usual there are some fringe cases where this law just does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are seedboxes going to cause entire data centers or hosting providers to be disconnected?
Users in the closed tracker communities pay for seedboxes at remote hosting facilities to help boost speeds and their ratio and they could single handily cause down time or disruption to 1000s of users if this laws consequences was applied to them.My guess is that if this law goes through then seedboxes would become even more popular.
Seed from the remote box, and VPN between the box and the home user.
It has to be a much safer option already... bandwidth is cheap and disk space is always getting cheaper.What about public WiFi projects and airports, hotels etc?
As usual there are some fringe cases where this law just doesn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579870</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're fucking stupid. Every story that makes you feel good about America is a portent of what's to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're fucking stupid .
Every story that makes you feel good about America is a portent of what 's to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're fucking stupid.
Every story that makes you feel good about America is a portent of what's to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580412</id>
	<title>Corporate Communism</title>
	<author>osoroco</author>
	<datestamp>1262084640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the record industries can do this, how long until an individual can convince the government that he should get paid for possible losses due to household robbery or carjacking? (yeah I know, never, they'll call him communist in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 seconds)

This is corporate communism</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the record industries can do this , how long until an individual can convince the government that he should get paid for possible losses due to household robbery or carjacking ?
( yeah I know , never , they 'll call him communist in .5 seconds ) This is corporate communism</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the record industries can do this, how long until an individual can convince the government that he should get paid for possible losses due to household robbery or carjacking?
(yeah I know, never, they'll call him communist in .5 seconds)

This is corporate communism</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581742</id>
	<title>Their \_perceived\_ losses</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1262100420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, post-Thatcher UK really can be as corrupt as the U.S. congress in handing out money to corporations.  No wonder y'all are fleeing to Spain and France if you can afford it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , post-Thatcher UK really can be as corrupt as the U.S. congress in handing out money to corporations .
No wonder y'all are fleeing to Spain and France if you can afford it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, post-Thatcher UK really can be as corrupt as the U.S. congress in handing out money to corporations.
No wonder y'all are fleeing to Spain and France if you can afford it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580958</id>
	<title>From a staunch anti-piracy supporter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262092320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is going too far. Check through my posts and you've seen many many times I've been in favour of penalising people who pirate. I've lambasted TPB et al and the people who use them and been modded down many many times. BUT. As a UK citizen who will be paying this, if they're going to extort money out of me for something I've never done, then fuck em, I'm going to get my money back and in that case, that means jumping on the P2P bandwagon. After all, I'm now going to be paying for what I download. I reckon 3-4 MP3s a month is about fair compensation going on the average legal download service track price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going too far .
Check through my posts and you 've seen many many times I 've been in favour of penalising people who pirate .
I 've lambasted TPB et al and the people who use them and been modded down many many times .
BUT. As a UK citizen who will be paying this , if they 're going to extort money out of me for something I 've never done , then fuck em , I 'm going to get my money back and in that case , that means jumping on the P2P bandwagon .
After all , I 'm now going to be paying for what I download .
I reckon 3-4 MP3s a month is about fair compensation going on the average legal download service track price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going too far.
Check through my posts and you've seen many many times I've been in favour of penalising people who pirate.
I've lambasted TPB et al and the people who use them and been modded down many many times.
BUT. As a UK citizen who will be paying this, if they're going to extort money out of me for something I've never done, then fuck em, I'm going to get my money back and in that case, that means jumping on the P2P bandwagon.
After all, I'm now going to be paying for what I download.
I reckon 3-4 MP3s a month is about fair compensation going on the average legal download service track price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30586454</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262080740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So your comparing stupid copyright laws to Holocaust?</p><p>Yea, that seems fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So your comparing stupid copyright laws to Holocaust ? Yea , that seems fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your comparing stupid copyright laws to Holocaust?Yea, that seems fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</id>
	<title>This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262029860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse. It makes me remember that we haven't hit those points yet so we always have somewhere else to look at whatever policy in practice before we have to deal with it</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU , UK , Australia , or Canada doing something that would be worse .
It makes me remember that we have n't hit those points yet so we always have somewhere else to look at whatever policy in practice before we have to deal with it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.
It makes me remember that we haven't hit those points yet so we always have somewhere else to look at whatever policy in practice before we have to deal with it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579946</id>
	<title>Politicians... They're so lovely</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1262119080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And so smart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And so smart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so smart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581216</id>
	<title>Re:Hasty Generalization at work (for you and me!)</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1262095860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>pay for the crimes of the public</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Copyright infringement is in most countries a CIVIL offense, not a criminal one. Where it is a criminal offense, it has only been enforced in cases of mass replication for profit, not "casual downloading".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pay for the crimes of the public       Copyright infringement is in most countries a CIVIL offense , not a criminal one .
Where it is a criminal offense , it has only been enforced in cases of mass replication for profit , not " casual downloading " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pay for the crimes of the public
      Copyright infringement is in most countries a CIVIL offense, not a criminal one.
Where it is a criminal offense, it has only been enforced in cases of mass replication for profit, not "casual downloading".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582970</id>
	<title>Re:Soap Ballot Ammo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes we will soon start having to assassinate artists one by one until they begin to understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes we will soon start having to assassinate artists one by one until they begin to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes we will soon start having to assassinate artists one by one until they begin to understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581308</id>
	<title>music industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262096820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The music industry is out of control. I buy all my music on rhapsody for $1 a song. I will rather not have the song then pay $10 for 9 trashy songs and one good one. Where does the music industry get off thinking they are entitled to funds. I think its absurd to say those downloading would have paid if they didn't download. You can't make a leap like this. As far as copyright laws I can see where 300 years from now they are abolished, but right now humanity is still kind of primitive and selfish and doesn't get the bigger picture for the betterment of mankind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The music industry is out of control .
I buy all my music on rhapsody for $ 1 a song .
I will rather not have the song then pay $ 10 for 9 trashy songs and one good one .
Where does the music industry get off thinking they are entitled to funds .
I think its absurd to say those downloading would have paid if they did n't download .
You ca n't make a leap like this .
As far as copyright laws I can see where 300 years from now they are abolished , but right now humanity is still kind of primitive and selfish and does n't get the bigger picture for the betterment of mankind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The music industry is out of control.
I buy all my music on rhapsody for $1 a song.
I will rather not have the song then pay $10 for 9 trashy songs and one good one.
Where does the music industry get off thinking they are entitled to funds.
I think its absurd to say those downloading would have paid if they didn't download.
You can't make a leap like this.
As far as copyright laws I can see where 300 years from now they are abolished, but right now humanity is still kind of primitive and selfish and doesn't get the bigger picture for the betterment of mankind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580894</id>
	<title>We are all criminals now.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262091480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to this fluff piece in the Times.</p><p>What's a poor citizen to do?</p><p>Every single UK broadband subscriber will be taxed / fined an extra &pound;25 per year, to prop up the film and music industry.</p><p>Nice work if you can get it.</p><p>Why not subsidise the fax industry as well, and the cassette tape industry, and while we are at it, how about the buggy whip manufacturing industry?</p><p>Business has a thing called "externalisation", what it boils down to is putting as much cost as possible outside the business, a classic example is a textile mill that externalises the cost of polluting, simply by dumping the pollutants into the local river. Someone else, downstream, can pick up the tab.</p><p>The justification for this is that allegedly the latest Star Trek movie was downloaded 11 million times in 2009.</p><p>Around 150 million visits to the cinema per year happen in the UK, if you take the alleged 11 million star treks, add in the harry potters, avatars (holds hand up) etc etc it is no stretch of the imagination to claim that 150 million movie downloads happened in the UK in 2009.</p><p>According to this metric, and the false logic employed, if downloading was banned, cinema attendances would double.</p><p>Bullshit.</p><p>Here is why;</p><p>
   1. There is the false logic assumption that if I had not downloaded Avatar, I would have gone to the cinema and paid to see it. This is utterly false. You would have to pay me at least &pound;5 to set foot in a cinema, to compensate me for the travel, mobile phones, noisy bastards, no smoking or drinking, inability to pause, crap seats, etc etc.</p><p>
   2. There is the false logic assumption that people like me with 46 1080p screens who prefer the comforts of our own homes would substitute the video rental shop for the cinema. Rubbish. The video rental shops don't have anything new, or anything good, or much choice of anything, and quite apart from that I have no interest in watching a Blu-ray that does not let me skip past 15 minutes of promo crap.</p><p>
   3. There is a false logic assumption that the media in question (whether it is cinema or rental) is value for money, I am simply not prepared to pay &pound;5 per head for a cinema ticket, or &pound;5 a night for a DVD, for 90 minutes of "entertainment" It is just way too expensive.</p><p>
   4. There is a false logic assumption, in short, that the 11 million downloads of Star Trek represent even 1 single lost cinema sale or DVD rental... You are reading this because it is free, would you pay &pound;5 to read it? Stupid question. Would you pay &pound;0.01 to read it? Stupid question.</p><p>
   5. There is a false logic assumption that the decline in cinema attendance figures, record sales, etc, say compared to 1970, is due to a change in people's attitudes, we have suddenly become a nation of thieves. Simply not true. These EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS were made about the compact audio cassette.</p><p>
   6. There is a false logic assumption that it is acceptable to impose a fine / tax / tariff on EVERYONE, that would be like mandating that I must buy a television licence, even though I haven't watched television for 20 years.</p><p>
   7. There is a false logic assumption that the technologies that they are going to deploy are actually going to catch people illegally sharing copyright material, ONLY, and NO-ONE ELSE, and indeed this is implicitly acknowledged in the desire to fine / tax / tariff ALL users of broadband, irrespective of what they do.</p><p>
   8. There is a false logic assumption that we are dealing with a static target, the ever evolving technology means that it really does not matter what methods you use to counter copyright violations (NOT copyright theft, no one is stealing your actual copyright, and no one is depriving anyone else of their use) because within the month (and I am being generous) they will be cracked.</p><p>
   9. T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this fluff piece in the Times.What 's a poor citizen to do ? Every single UK broadband subscriber will be taxed / fined an extra   25 per year , to prop up the film and music industry.Nice work if you can get it.Why not subsidise the fax industry as well , and the cassette tape industry , and while we are at it , how about the buggy whip manufacturing industry ? Business has a thing called " externalisation " , what it boils down to is putting as much cost as possible outside the business , a classic example is a textile mill that externalises the cost of polluting , simply by dumping the pollutants into the local river .
Someone else , downstream , can pick up the tab.The justification for this is that allegedly the latest Star Trek movie was downloaded 11 million times in 2009.Around 150 million visits to the cinema per year happen in the UK , if you take the alleged 11 million star treks , add in the harry potters , avatars ( holds hand up ) etc etc it is no stretch of the imagination to claim that 150 million movie downloads happened in the UK in 2009.According to this metric , and the false logic employed , if downloading was banned , cinema attendances would double.Bullshit.Here is why ; 1 .
There is the false logic assumption that if I had not downloaded Avatar , I would have gone to the cinema and paid to see it .
This is utterly false .
You would have to pay me at least   5 to set foot in a cinema , to compensate me for the travel , mobile phones , noisy bastards , no smoking or drinking , inability to pause , crap seats , etc etc .
2. There is the false logic assumption that people like me with 46 1080p screens who prefer the comforts of our own homes would substitute the video rental shop for the cinema .
Rubbish. The video rental shops do n't have anything new , or anything good , or much choice of anything , and quite apart from that I have no interest in watching a Blu-ray that does not let me skip past 15 minutes of promo crap .
3. There is a false logic assumption that the media in question ( whether it is cinema or rental ) is value for money , I am simply not prepared to pay   5 per head for a cinema ticket , or   5 a night for a DVD , for 90 minutes of " entertainment " It is just way too expensive .
4. There is a false logic assumption , in short , that the 11 million downloads of Star Trek represent even 1 single lost cinema sale or DVD rental... You are reading this because it is free , would you pay   5 to read it ?
Stupid question .
Would you pay   0.01 to read it ?
Stupid question .
5. There is a false logic assumption that the decline in cinema attendance figures , record sales , etc , say compared to 1970 , is due to a change in people 's attitudes , we have suddenly become a nation of thieves .
Simply not true .
These EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS were made about the compact audio cassette .
6. There is a false logic assumption that it is acceptable to impose a fine / tax / tariff on EVERYONE , that would be like mandating that I must buy a television licence , even though I have n't watched television for 20 years .
7. There is a false logic assumption that the technologies that they are going to deploy are actually going to catch people illegally sharing copyright material , ONLY , and NO-ONE ELSE , and indeed this is implicitly acknowledged in the desire to fine / tax / tariff ALL users of broadband , irrespective of what they do .
8. There is a false logic assumption that we are dealing with a static target , the ever evolving technology means that it really does not matter what methods you use to counter copyright violations ( NOT copyright theft , no one is stealing your actual copyright , and no one is depriving anyone else of their use ) because within the month ( and I am being generous ) they will be cracked .
9. T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this fluff piece in the Times.What's a poor citizen to do?Every single UK broadband subscriber will be taxed / fined an extra £25 per year, to prop up the film and music industry.Nice work if you can get it.Why not subsidise the fax industry as well, and the cassette tape industry, and while we are at it, how about the buggy whip manufacturing industry?Business has a thing called "externalisation", what it boils down to is putting as much cost as possible outside the business, a classic example is a textile mill that externalises the cost of polluting, simply by dumping the pollutants into the local river.
Someone else, downstream, can pick up the tab.The justification for this is that allegedly the latest Star Trek movie was downloaded 11 million times in 2009.Around 150 million visits to the cinema per year happen in the UK, if you take the alleged 11 million star treks, add in the harry potters, avatars (holds hand up) etc etc it is no stretch of the imagination to claim that 150 million movie downloads happened in the UK in 2009.According to this metric, and the false logic employed, if downloading was banned, cinema attendances would double.Bullshit.Here is why;
   1.
There is the false logic assumption that if I had not downloaded Avatar, I would have gone to the cinema and paid to see it.
This is utterly false.
You would have to pay me at least £5 to set foot in a cinema, to compensate me for the travel, mobile phones, noisy bastards, no smoking or drinking, inability to pause, crap seats, etc etc.
2. There is the false logic assumption that people like me with 46 1080p screens who prefer the comforts of our own homes would substitute the video rental shop for the cinema.
Rubbish. The video rental shops don't have anything new, or anything good, or much choice of anything, and quite apart from that I have no interest in watching a Blu-ray that does not let me skip past 15 minutes of promo crap.
3. There is a false logic assumption that the media in question (whether it is cinema or rental) is value for money, I am simply not prepared to pay £5 per head for a cinema ticket, or £5 a night for a DVD, for 90 minutes of "entertainment" It is just way too expensive.
4. There is a false logic assumption, in short, that the 11 million downloads of Star Trek represent even 1 single lost cinema sale or DVD rental... You are reading this because it is free, would you pay £5 to read it?
Stupid question.
Would you pay £0.01 to read it?
Stupid question.
5. There is a false logic assumption that the decline in cinema attendance figures, record sales, etc, say compared to 1970, is due to a change in people's attitudes, we have suddenly become a nation of thieves.
Simply not true.
These EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS were made about the compact audio cassette.
6. There is a false logic assumption that it is acceptable to impose a fine / tax / tariff on EVERYONE, that would be like mandating that I must buy a television licence, even though I haven't watched television for 20 years.
7. There is a false logic assumption that the technologies that they are going to deploy are actually going to catch people illegally sharing copyright material, ONLY, and NO-ONE ELSE, and indeed this is implicitly acknowledged in the desire to fine / tax / tariff ALL users of broadband, irrespective of what they do.
8. There is a false logic assumption that we are dealing with a static target, the ever evolving technology means that it really does not matter what methods you use to counter copyright violations (NOT copyright theft, no one is stealing your actual copyright, and no one is depriving anyone else of their use) because within the month (and I am being generous) they will be cracked.
9. T</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581548</id>
	<title>the music industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262098860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think the best solution to the whole music industry problem is to simply shun them. Don't buy their stuff, don't pirate their stuff, don't share their stuff, don't review their stuff, don't discuss their stuff with your friends, don't link to their sites, don't visit their sites, don't search for material by them. There is no shortage of artist not aligned with the industry, their is no shortage of free, creative commons, or shareware like songs.<br>"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." - The Uses of Diversity, 1921</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think the best solution to the whole music industry problem is to simply shun them .
Do n't buy their stuff , do n't pirate their stuff , do n't share their stuff , do n't review their stuff , do n't discuss their stuff with your friends , do n't link to their sites , do n't visit their sites , do n't search for material by them .
There is no shortage of artist not aligned with the industry , their is no shortage of free , creative commons , or shareware like songs .
" Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists , but too few capitalists .
" - The Uses of Diversity , 1921</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think the best solution to the whole music industry problem is to simply shun them.
Don't buy their stuff, don't pirate their stuff, don't share their stuff, don't review their stuff, don't discuss their stuff with your friends, don't link to their sites, don't visit their sites, don't search for material by them.
There is no shortage of artist not aligned with the industry, their is no shortage of free, creative commons, or shareware like songs.
"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.
" - The Uses of Diversity, 1921</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580260</id>
	<title>Did anyone RTFA?</title>
	<author>supersat</author>
	<datestamp>1262081520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This proposal, as described in the article, would enact DMCA-like takedown notices:<blockquote><div><p>The Digital Economy Bill would force internet service providers (ISPs) to send warning letters to anyone caught swapping copyright material illegally, and to suspend or slow the connections of those who refused to stop.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The ISPs are claiming that this will cost them &pound;25 per year per connection to enforce, and they want the content industries to pony up the money.
<br> <br>
Now, I don't know about you, but &pound;25 per year per connection seems like a lot. In the US, the process can be largely automated -- DMCA notices now often contain XML that ISPs can parse automatically and forward the notice without any human intervention.
<br> <br>
And then there's this load of crap:</p><blockquote><div><p>Ministers have not estimated the cost of the measures but say that the cost of the initial letter-writing campaign, estimated at an extra &pound;1.40 per subscription, will lead to 40,000 households giving up their internet connections. Impact assessments published alongside the Bill predict that the measures will generate &pound;1.7 billion in extra sales for the film and music industries over the next ten years, as well as &pound;350 million for the Government in extra VAT.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I doubt a single household will give up Internet for this. The casual sharers will stop or migrate to hosted services. The hardcore sharers will likely find ways to make their actions harder to trace.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This proposal , as described in the article , would enact DMCA-like takedown notices : The Digital Economy Bill would force internet service providers ( ISPs ) to send warning letters to anyone caught swapping copyright material illegally , and to suspend or slow the connections of those who refused to stop .
The ISPs are claiming that this will cost them   25 per year per connection to enforce , and they want the content industries to pony up the money .
Now , I do n't know about you , but   25 per year per connection seems like a lot .
In the US , the process can be largely automated -- DMCA notices now often contain XML that ISPs can parse automatically and forward the notice without any human intervention .
And then there 's this load of crap : Ministers have not estimated the cost of the measures but say that the cost of the initial letter-writing campaign , estimated at an extra   1.40 per subscription , will lead to 40,000 households giving up their internet connections .
Impact assessments published alongside the Bill predict that the measures will generate   1.7 billion in extra sales for the film and music industries over the next ten years , as well as   350 million for the Government in extra VAT .
I doubt a single household will give up Internet for this .
The casual sharers will stop or migrate to hosted services .
The hardcore sharers will likely find ways to make their actions harder to trace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This proposal, as described in the article, would enact DMCA-like takedown notices:The Digital Economy Bill would force internet service providers (ISPs) to send warning letters to anyone caught swapping copyright material illegally, and to suspend or slow the connections of those who refused to stop.
The ISPs are claiming that this will cost them £25 per year per connection to enforce, and they want the content industries to pony up the money.
Now, I don't know about you, but £25 per year per connection seems like a lot.
In the US, the process can be largely automated -- DMCA notices now often contain XML that ISPs can parse automatically and forward the notice without any human intervention.
And then there's this load of crap:Ministers have not estimated the cost of the measures but say that the cost of the initial letter-writing campaign, estimated at an extra £1.40 per subscription, will lead to 40,000 households giving up their internet connections.
Impact assessments published alongside the Bill predict that the measures will generate £1.7 billion in extra sales for the film and music industries over the next ten years, as well as £350 million for the Government in extra VAT.
I doubt a single household will give up Internet for this.
The casual sharers will stop or migrate to hosted services.
The hardcore sharers will likely find ways to make their actions harder to trace.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581770</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>stjobe</author>
	<datestamp>1262100720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still think Woody Guthrie said it best:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don&rsquo;t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that&rsquo;s all we wanted to do.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still think Woody Guthrie said it best : This song is Copyrighted in U.S. , under Seal of Copyright # 154085 , for a period of 28 years , and anybody caught singin it without our permission , will be mighty good friends of ourn , cause we don    t give a dern .
Publish it .
Write it .
Sing it .
Swing to it .
Yodel it .
We wrote it , that    s all we wanted to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still think Woody Guthrie said it best:This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern.
Publish it.
Write it.
Sing it.
Swing to it.
Yodel it.
We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976</id>
	<title>RE:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.</p></div></blockquote><p>

But AQIS (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) still must operate inside Australian law, which gives me protection. So I cant be arrested at an Australian airport and held without charge unless I've violated a law, which means I've been charged. This may make you feel better but AQIS and the AFP are a long way off from being a TSA and declaring certain areas to be "rights free" zones.<br> <br>

At worse, Australia is talking about a filtering system that will be easily defeated by a VPN tunnel to Singapore (yes, its still only talking, nothing has actually been implemented yet), it's significantly more difficult to do an end run around a US airport.<br> <br>

Also if you read TFA, you'd also know that this bill hasn't passed yet.</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Proposals</b> to suspend the internet connections of those who repeatedly share music and films online will leave consumers with a bill for &pound;500 million, ministers have admitted.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I know that you're a USian and I have a policy against attacking people who do not use English as their primary language but "proposal" does not mean "signed into law".<br> <br>

The US introduced far worse laws like warrant-less wiretapping or giving the TSA carte blanc, so when you are in a glass house its a very good idea not to throw stones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU , UK , Australia , or Canada doing something that would be worse .
But AQIS ( Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service ) still must operate inside Australian law , which gives me protection .
So I cant be arrested at an Australian airport and held without charge unless I 've violated a law , which means I 've been charged .
This may make you feel better but AQIS and the AFP are a long way off from being a TSA and declaring certain areas to be " rights free " zones .
At worse , Australia is talking about a filtering system that will be easily defeated by a VPN tunnel to Singapore ( yes , its still only talking , nothing has actually been implemented yet ) , it 's significantly more difficult to do an end run around a US airport .
Also if you read TFA , you 'd also know that this bill has n't passed yet .
Proposals to suspend the internet connections of those who repeatedly share music and films online will leave consumers with a bill for   500 million , ministers have admitted .
I know that you 're a USian and I have a policy against attacking people who do not use English as their primary language but " proposal " does not mean " signed into law " .
The US introduced far worse laws like warrant-less wiretapping or giving the TSA carte blanc , so when you are in a glass house its a very good idea not to throw stones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.
But AQIS (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) still must operate inside Australian law, which gives me protection.
So I cant be arrested at an Australian airport and held without charge unless I've violated a law, which means I've been charged.
This may make you feel better but AQIS and the AFP are a long way off from being a TSA and declaring certain areas to be "rights free" zones.
At worse, Australia is talking about a filtering system that will be easily defeated by a VPN tunnel to Singapore (yes, its still only talking, nothing has actually been implemented yet), it's significantly more difficult to do an end run around a US airport.
Also if you read TFA, you'd also know that this bill hasn't passed yet.
Proposals to suspend the internet connections of those who repeatedly share music and films online will leave consumers with a bill for £500 million, ministers have admitted.
I know that you're a USian and I have a policy against attacking people who do not use English as their primary language but "proposal" does not mean "signed into law".
The US introduced far worse laws like warrant-less wiretapping or giving the TSA carte blanc, so when you are in a glass house its a very good idea not to throw stones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581396</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262097420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"(you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with)"</p><p>Sure. You can make films in your garage too, but you are not going to be doing any chase scenes.</p><p>There are certain kinds of music you can record on a pc in a bedroom, but not all kinds, especially live music, is possible to do well in a little box. The main reason those studios are big are so a group of people can play together in a nice sounding room. The equipment used to record it is less important.</p><p>People have always had bedroom studios, and hits have come out of them, (see Les Pauls solo multitrack "Lover (When You're Near Me)" circa 1948), but there are good reasons for other ways of recording too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ( you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore , you can do it in your garage with a PC , some software and some microphones to record with ) " Sure .
You can make films in your garage too , but you are not going to be doing any chase scenes.There are certain kinds of music you can record on a pc in a bedroom , but not all kinds , especially live music , is possible to do well in a little box .
The main reason those studios are big are so a group of people can play together in a nice sounding room .
The equipment used to record it is less important.People have always had bedroom studios , and hits have come out of them , ( see Les Pauls solo multitrack " Lover ( When You 're Near Me ) " circa 1948 ) , but there are good reasons for other ways of recording too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"(you dont NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with)"Sure.
You can make films in your garage too, but you are not going to be doing any chase scenes.There are certain kinds of music you can record on a pc in a bedroom, but not all kinds, especially live music, is possible to do well in a little box.
The main reason those studios are big are so a group of people can play together in a nice sounding room.
The equipment used to record it is less important.People have always had bedroom studios, and hits have come out of them, (see Les Pauls solo multitrack "Lover (When You're Near Me)" circa 1948), but there are good reasons for other ways of recording too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580192</id>
	<title>Re:Doesnt this make Pirated stuff, now free to all</title>
	<author>mhwombat</author>
	<datestamp>1262079900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read TFA they actually want to spend the money on trying to chase people who pirate. So it's not officially to "pay for the music", it's to pay for punitive measures - so the music industry won't make any money out of it unless this strategy is effective in increasing sales (which I seriously doubt).</p><p>So in the eyes of the recording industry and the government, no, they're not going to be any happier about piracy or consider it paid for. In the eyes of the public being "taxed for piracy", maybe - I would not be at all surprised if piracy increased as a result of this bill.</p><p>I'd be happier if they <i>did</i> tax directly to support free music downloads. This money is a sheer waste. If only we could have an evil recording industry, instead of a stupid one... surely enlightened self-interest couldn't be as bad as what we have now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read TFA they actually want to spend the money on trying to chase people who pirate .
So it 's not officially to " pay for the music " , it 's to pay for punitive measures - so the music industry wo n't make any money out of it unless this strategy is effective in increasing sales ( which I seriously doubt ) .So in the eyes of the recording industry and the government , no , they 're not going to be any happier about piracy or consider it paid for .
In the eyes of the public being " taxed for piracy " , maybe - I would not be at all surprised if piracy increased as a result of this bill.I 'd be happier if they did tax directly to support free music downloads .
This money is a sheer waste .
If only we could have an evil recording industry , instead of a stupid one... surely enlightened self-interest could n't be as bad as what we have now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read TFA they actually want to spend the money on trying to chase people who pirate.
So it's not officially to "pay for the music", it's to pay for punitive measures - so the music industry won't make any money out of it unless this strategy is effective in increasing sales (which I seriously doubt).So in the eyes of the recording industry and the government, no, they're not going to be any happier about piracy or consider it paid for.
In the eyes of the public being "taxed for piracy", maybe - I would not be at all surprised if piracy increased as a result of this bill.I'd be happier if they did tax directly to support free music downloads.
This money is a sheer waste.
If only we could have an evil recording industry, instead of a stupid one... surely enlightened self-interest couldn't be as bad as what we have now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581220</id>
	<title>conservatives rejoice</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1262095860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For once, a tax that can almost legitimately be referred to as stealing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For once , a tax that can almost legitimately be referred to as stealing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For once, a tax that can almost legitimately be referred to as stealing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580526</id>
	<title>Re:Perceived enjoyment.</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1262086440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years ago it was rare for most people to regularly communicate with those in other countries, and if they did it was likely to be a very slow exchange involving letters written on paper... Movies would come out in one country and people in another wouldn't even realise until the same movie came out in their country 6 months later. And then there were format differences (NTSC, PAL etc) which made it more difficult to play foreign videos.<br>When i was younger, any media my parents bought me, they would make me copy and play the copy because as a child the chance of me damaging the original was pretty high.</p><p>Now, media is digital so the format difference becomes irrelevant, so they try to create an artificial difference (region coding)...<br>People regularly communicate worldwide, so when something comes out in one country people in another hear about it and get exposed to the marketing, only they have no legitimate way to obtain it... By the time it comes out in their country, it's already old news on the internet.</p><p>People want to copy the media they legitimately purchased onto multiple devices, portable players, media jukeboxes (large hard drives so lots of media is available immediately without the hassle of swapping disks), in-car players, backup copies...</p><p>People might want to play out of region movies/games, perhaps they bought some on holiday, perhaps some media isn't available in their country at all, although they will still be exposed to talk of it on the internet.</p><p>Nowadays, only "pirate" copies provide the fair use rights we were once able to exercise or would like to exercise using new technology.</p><p>Consider that the "pirates" are providing a superior product for a lower cost. In fact, if the pirates charged the same price their product would still be superior. Without artificial help from the government, the media companies business model simply couldn't exist.... Your tax dollars are paying to prop up a broken business model so that what little money you have left after tax can go to them too in exchange for a crippled product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago it was rare for most people to regularly communicate with those in other countries , and if they did it was likely to be a very slow exchange involving letters written on paper... Movies would come out in one country and people in another would n't even realise until the same movie came out in their country 6 months later .
And then there were format differences ( NTSC , PAL etc ) which made it more difficult to play foreign videos.When i was younger , any media my parents bought me , they would make me copy and play the copy because as a child the chance of me damaging the original was pretty high.Now , media is digital so the format difference becomes irrelevant , so they try to create an artificial difference ( region coding ) ...People regularly communicate worldwide , so when something comes out in one country people in another hear about it and get exposed to the marketing , only they have no legitimate way to obtain it... By the time it comes out in their country , it 's already old news on the internet.People want to copy the media they legitimately purchased onto multiple devices , portable players , media jukeboxes ( large hard drives so lots of media is available immediately without the hassle of swapping disks ) , in-car players , backup copies...People might want to play out of region movies/games , perhaps they bought some on holiday , perhaps some media is n't available in their country at all , although they will still be exposed to talk of it on the internet.Nowadays , only " pirate " copies provide the fair use rights we were once able to exercise or would like to exercise using new technology.Consider that the " pirates " are providing a superior product for a lower cost .
In fact , if the pirates charged the same price their product would still be superior .
Without artificial help from the government , the media companies business model simply could n't exist.... Your tax dollars are paying to prop up a broken business model so that what little money you have left after tax can go to them too in exchange for a crippled product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago it was rare for most people to regularly communicate with those in other countries, and if they did it was likely to be a very slow exchange involving letters written on paper... Movies would come out in one country and people in another wouldn't even realise until the same movie came out in their country 6 months later.
And then there were format differences (NTSC, PAL etc) which made it more difficult to play foreign videos.When i was younger, any media my parents bought me, they would make me copy and play the copy because as a child the chance of me damaging the original was pretty high.Now, media is digital so the format difference becomes irrelevant, so they try to create an artificial difference (region coding)...People regularly communicate worldwide, so when something comes out in one country people in another hear about it and get exposed to the marketing, only they have no legitimate way to obtain it... By the time it comes out in their country, it's already old news on the internet.People want to copy the media they legitimately purchased onto multiple devices, portable players, media jukeboxes (large hard drives so lots of media is available immediately without the hassle of swapping disks), in-car players, backup copies...People might want to play out of region movies/games, perhaps they bought some on holiday, perhaps some media isn't available in their country at all, although they will still be exposed to talk of it on the internet.Nowadays, only "pirate" copies provide the fair use rights we were once able to exercise or would like to exercise using new technology.Consider that the "pirates" are providing a superior product for a lower cost.
In fact, if the pirates charged the same price their product would still be superior.
Without artificial help from the government, the media companies business model simply couldn't exist.... Your tax dollars are paying to prop up a broken business model so that what little money you have left after tax can go to them too in exchange for a crippled product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579918</id>
	<title>This would make me so reluctant to buy music</title>
	<author>mhwombat</author>
	<datestamp>1262118780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, if I were in the UK, spending money on music at all would feel like being double-charged after this fiasco. I'd feel I'd already "paid" for it through taxes. The irony is that the money will be wasted on punitive measures, so the industry won't even profit from it - and if it causes music sales to drop, they will be even worse off.</p><p>I honestly suspect that normally music piracy encourages more music sales, not less. But now the industry has managed to shoot even that in the foot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if I were in the UK , spending money on music at all would feel like being double-charged after this fiasco .
I 'd feel I 'd already " paid " for it through taxes .
The irony is that the money will be wasted on punitive measures , so the industry wo n't even profit from it - and if it causes music sales to drop , they will be even worse off.I honestly suspect that normally music piracy encourages more music sales , not less .
But now the industry has managed to shoot even that in the foot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if I were in the UK, spending money on music at all would feel like being double-charged after this fiasco.
I'd feel I'd already "paid" for it through taxes.
The irony is that the money will be wasted on punitive measures, so the industry won't even profit from it - and if it causes music sales to drop, they will be even worse off.I honestly suspect that normally music piracy encourages more music sales, not less.
But now the industry has managed to shoot even that in the foot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585092</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is Wrong and Dumb</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262117820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It IS a subsidy and for all practical purposes it is also a tax.. It is other people's money being re-allocated by fiat to the sole benefit of the *AA. It is a tax in all but name (technically it is an "un-funded mandate", but it's practical outcome is the same).</p><p>If it quacks like a duck....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It IS a subsidy and for all practical purposes it is also a tax.. It is other people 's money being re-allocated by fiat to the sole benefit of the * AA .
It is a tax in all but name ( technically it is an " un-funded mandate " , but it 's practical outcome is the same ) .If it quacks like a duck... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It IS a subsidy and for all practical purposes it is also a tax.. It is other people's money being re-allocated by fiat to the sole benefit of the *AA.
It is a tax in all but name (technically it is an "un-funded mandate", but it's practical outcome is the same).If it quacks like a duck....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580536</id>
	<title>Music industry is destroying itself, and I am glad</title>
	<author>kegon</author>
	<datestamp>1262086620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The music industry is morally bankrupt. Perhaps from the phoenix of a music apocalypse we can move on to something better: artists who are respected and supported, new talent nurtured and the people allowed to enjoy music without hassle.</p><p>I managed to buy my mp3 player before an "iPod tax" was introduced. Every single mp3 I have is ripped from my very own paid for CDs. I prefer CDs as they are better quality and have no compression artefacts; mp3 players are for music on the go. Why the hell should I pay a tax to compensate for something I haven't stolen ?</p><p>The fact is that 90\% of the world's iPods are owned by 12-16 year olds with no disposable income to use to buy mp3s, but they can afford $150 of mp3 player and $400 smart phones. Something doesn't add up. Oh wait, perhaps it has something to with how the music industry has stifled talent, spent all the budget on manufactured boy/girl bands to up their profits, and now they're scared they've raided the cookie jar too many times and there is nothing left.</p><p>Let me put it this way: fscking Pop Idol and X Factor - no one is downloading mp3s of those "artists" to put on their iPod. Someone should tell the record companies straight: the days of mega sales are over, they were over 20 years ago. If you move to $0.99 an album and actually support your artists (real ones) then perhaps there is a chance of saving your industry.</p><p>While we're at it, someone should go over and explain it to Peter Mandelson and Lily Allen. Making ISPs cops and going after people who love music isn't going to help your cause.</p><p>I do not condone copying music, IMHO downloading something to preview it is not stealing, as long as you delete it or buy it within a reasonably short time frame; also mp3s (inferior quality and downloaded at users' expense) should not cost as much as a CD album (superior quality on a physical medium).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The music industry is morally bankrupt .
Perhaps from the phoenix of a music apocalypse we can move on to something better : artists who are respected and supported , new talent nurtured and the people allowed to enjoy music without hassle.I managed to buy my mp3 player before an " iPod tax " was introduced .
Every single mp3 I have is ripped from my very own paid for CDs .
I prefer CDs as they are better quality and have no compression artefacts ; mp3 players are for music on the go .
Why the hell should I pay a tax to compensate for something I have n't stolen ? The fact is that 90 \ % of the world 's iPods are owned by 12-16 year olds with no disposable income to use to buy mp3s , but they can afford $ 150 of mp3 player and $ 400 smart phones .
Something does n't add up .
Oh wait , perhaps it has something to with how the music industry has stifled talent , spent all the budget on manufactured boy/girl bands to up their profits , and now they 're scared they 've raided the cookie jar too many times and there is nothing left.Let me put it this way : fscking Pop Idol and X Factor - no one is downloading mp3s of those " artists " to put on their iPod .
Someone should tell the record companies straight : the days of mega sales are over , they were over 20 years ago .
If you move to $ 0.99 an album and actually support your artists ( real ones ) then perhaps there is a chance of saving your industry.While we 're at it , someone should go over and explain it to Peter Mandelson and Lily Allen .
Making ISPs cops and going after people who love music is n't going to help your cause.I do not condone copying music , IMHO downloading something to preview it is not stealing , as long as you delete it or buy it within a reasonably short time frame ; also mp3s ( inferior quality and downloaded at users ' expense ) should not cost as much as a CD album ( superior quality on a physical medium ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The music industry is morally bankrupt.
Perhaps from the phoenix of a music apocalypse we can move on to something better: artists who are respected and supported, new talent nurtured and the people allowed to enjoy music without hassle.I managed to buy my mp3 player before an "iPod tax" was introduced.
Every single mp3 I have is ripped from my very own paid for CDs.
I prefer CDs as they are better quality and have no compression artefacts; mp3 players are for music on the go.
Why the hell should I pay a tax to compensate for something I haven't stolen ?The fact is that 90\% of the world's iPods are owned by 12-16 year olds with no disposable income to use to buy mp3s, but they can afford $150 of mp3 player and $400 smart phones.
Something doesn't add up.
Oh wait, perhaps it has something to with how the music industry has stifled talent, spent all the budget on manufactured boy/girl bands to up their profits, and now they're scared they've raided the cookie jar too many times and there is nothing left.Let me put it this way: fscking Pop Idol and X Factor - no one is downloading mp3s of those "artists" to put on their iPod.
Someone should tell the record companies straight: the days of mega sales are over, they were over 20 years ago.
If you move to $0.99 an album and actually support your artists (real ones) then perhaps there is a chance of saving your industry.While we're at it, someone should go over and explain it to Peter Mandelson and Lily Allen.
Making ISPs cops and going after people who love music isn't going to help your cause.I do not condone copying music, IMHO downloading something to preview it is not stealing, as long as you delete it or buy it within a reasonably short time frame; also mp3s (inferior quality and downloaded at users' expense) should not cost as much as a CD album (superior quality on a physical medium).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580156</id>
	<title>Perceived enjoyment.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262079300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times, and change their business models."</p><p>I agree their business models should revolve around the consumer getting free content. Just look at how well it worked for the Piratebay. We all would do well to emulate them by working for free like say those open source guys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times , and change their business models .
" I agree their business models should revolve around the consumer getting free content .
Just look at how well it worked for the Piratebay .
We all would do well to emulate them by working for free like say those open source guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times, and change their business models.
"I agree their business models should revolve around the consumer getting free content.
Just look at how well it worked for the Piratebay.
We all would do well to emulate them by working for free like say those open source guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580862</id>
	<title>Not a subsidy.</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1262091120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Labels are not getting any of the money. The money is the cost, to ISPs, of mandatory anti-piracy measures, which it is expected will be passed on to the consumer. The US consumer probably paid a similar amount to their ISP cover the cost of DMCA legal actions in the past decade. It's forcing the shepherd to police the duck pond, which is an entirely different problem that this summary wonderfully distracts you from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Labels are not getting any of the money .
The money is the cost , to ISPs , of mandatory anti-piracy measures , which it is expected will be passed on to the consumer .
The US consumer probably paid a similar amount to their ISP cover the cost of DMCA legal actions in the past decade .
It 's forcing the shepherd to police the duck pond , which is an entirely different problem that this summary wonderfully distracts you from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Labels are not getting any of the money.
The money is the cost, to ISPs, of mandatory anti-piracy measures, which it is expected will be passed on to the consumer.
The US consumer probably paid a similar amount to their ISP cover the cost of DMCA legal actions in the past decade.
It's forcing the shepherd to police the duck pond, which is an entirely different problem that this summary wonderfully distracts you from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579828</id>
	<title>Re:true</title>
	<author>Pantero Blanco</author>
	<datestamp>1262117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this were an act of law enforcement and the money were a fine, I believe some sort of trial would be required.</p><p>What's actually happening is that the UK's government is forcing ISPs to warn people who they believe are breaking the law. Of course, ISPs are saying that this is expensive and that they plan to pass the costs along to consumers.</p><p>I think this is going to be a laughable clusterfuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this were an act of law enforcement and the money were a fine , I believe some sort of trial would be required.What 's actually happening is that the UK 's government is forcing ISPs to warn people who they believe are breaking the law .
Of course , ISPs are saying that this is expensive and that they plan to pass the costs along to consumers.I think this is going to be a laughable clusterfuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this were an act of law enforcement and the money were a fine, I believe some sort of trial would be required.What's actually happening is that the UK's government is forcing ISPs to warn people who they believe are breaking the law.
Of course, ISPs are saying that this is expensive and that they plan to pass the costs along to consumers.I think this is going to be a laughable clusterfuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581608</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite..</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1262099400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government must have decided they're too big to fail. Or, to put it more accurately, their campaign contributions are too big for them to fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government must have decided they 're too big to fail .
Or , to put it more accurately , their campaign contributions are too big for them to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government must have decided they're too big to fail.
Or, to put it more accurately, their campaign contributions are too big for them to fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580784</id>
	<title>Re:tax?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262090040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point. Since I'm forced into paying this flat fee / tax, and the money will go to the artist (the corporations say so), I might give this illegal downloading thing a go - especially as it'll offer better value-for-money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
Since I 'm forced into paying this flat fee / tax , and the money will go to the artist ( the corporations say so ) , I might give this illegal downloading thing a go - especially as it 'll offer better value-for-money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
Since I'm forced into paying this flat fee / tax, and the money will go to the artist (the corporations say so), I might give this illegal downloading thing a go - especially as it'll offer better value-for-money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580886</id>
	<title>I'm not sure what's worse;</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1262091360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That you had the bad taste to compare this to the holocaust, or that at least 2 people thought that it was a good enough idea to mod you up.</p><p>Seriously, can't you find a more decent clich&eacute; for your karma whoring?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That you had the bad taste to compare this to the holocaust , or that at least 2 people thought that it was a good enough idea to mod you up.Seriously , ca n't you find a more decent clich   for your karma whoring ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That you had the bad taste to compare this to the holocaust, or that at least 2 people thought that it was a good enough idea to mod you up.Seriously, can't you find a more decent cliché for your karma whoring?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580390</id>
	<title>Re:tax?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1262084100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, the "tax" will be used to pay for <em>stopping</em> you downloading to your heart's content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the " tax " will be used to pay for stopping you downloading to your heart 's content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the "tax" will be used to pay for stopping you downloading to your heart's content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30586692</id>
	<title>Re:Good example of piracy versus robbery</title>
	<author>paving-slab</author>
	<datestamp>1262082000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"This book shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent <b>in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published</b> and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser"</p></div></blockquote><p>
Please take note of the part in bold.
It is legal to lend, resell or hire out provided the book is in it's original cover or binding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This book shall not , by way of trade or otherwise , be lent , resold , hired out , or otherwise circulated without the publisher 's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition , including this condition , being imposed on the subsequent purchaser " Please take note of the part in bold .
It is legal to lend , resell or hire out provided the book is in it 's original cover or binding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This book shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser"
Please take note of the part in bold.
It is legal to lend, resell or hire out provided the book is in it's original cover or binding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585212</id>
	<title>Re:Think of the opportunities!</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1262118360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>lost revenues $99.996G =&gt; drive government to bankruptcy.</p></div><p>That's what governments deserve for dealing in Gigadollars!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lost revenues $ 99.996G = &gt; drive government to bankruptcy.That 's what governments deserve for dealing in Gigadollars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lost revenues $99.996G =&gt; drive government to bankruptcy.That's what governments deserve for dealing in Gigadollars!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580208</id>
	<title>Re:false</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262080380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it isn't: <a href="http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3756/artsharingfz4.jpg" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3756/artsharingfz4.jpg</a> [imageshack.us]</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is n't : http : //img139.imageshack.us/img139/3756/artsharingfz4.jpg [ imageshack.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it isn't: http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3756/artsharingfz4.jpg [imageshack.us]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581286</id>
	<title>Re:They will NEVER adapt to the new world</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1262096580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Good film cameras, films, lenses, and lightning are expensive,</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rubbish. The movie industry has inflated itself to death. Why would you feel sympathy for someone who has smoked 70 cigarettes a day, on receiving the news that he has cancer? Why worry about the 500 lb man who is dying of heart disease? It's not the price of the "film cameras, films, lenses (wait, you already charged me for the camera!) and lighting". The BIGGEST item on a movie's budget is MARKETING. All those commercials on TV and radio. All those mini "infomercials" about the "making of movie X" before the launch. They cost money. Then there's wages. Why the hell must an actor earn several MILLION dollars for performing? Then, WAY DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, there's the actual production cost for the carpenters, electricians, etc.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Just like the investment banks that started paying themselves multi million dollar bonuses, they've inflated their professions. Now no one wants to work for an investment bank for less, and they whine that they "HAVE TO" pay these huge bonuses to attract talent. For movies - idem. The marketing is a penis-stroking maneuver. Oh I need to spend $200 million in advertising to increase my box office revenue by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...tadaa... $201 million. Oh and we HAVE to pay $10+ million dollars to get Whatshisname to play the lead role, because no other lesser human can make a decent movie (cough - what was the total production cost of Slumdog millionaire again? $250k?)... No, I feel no sympathy. And it ain't the cellulose film that costs $100 million.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good film cameras , films , lenses , and lightning are expensive ,       Rubbish .
The movie industry has inflated itself to death .
Why would you feel sympathy for someone who has smoked 70 cigarettes a day , on receiving the news that he has cancer ?
Why worry about the 500 lb man who is dying of heart disease ?
It 's not the price of the " film cameras , films , lenses ( wait , you already charged me for the camera !
) and lighting " .
The BIGGEST item on a movie 's budget is MARKETING .
All those commercials on TV and radio .
All those mini " infomercials " about the " making of movie X " before the launch .
They cost money .
Then there 's wages .
Why the hell must an actor earn several MILLION dollars for performing ?
Then , WAY DOWN AT THE BOTTOM , there 's the actual production cost for the carpenters , electricians , etc .
      Just like the investment banks that started paying themselves multi million dollar bonuses , they 've inflated their professions .
Now no one wants to work for an investment bank for less , and they whine that they " HAVE TO " pay these huge bonuses to attract talent .
For movies - idem .
The marketing is a penis-stroking maneuver .
Oh I need to spend $ 200 million in advertising to increase my box office revenue by ...tadaa... $ 201 million .
Oh and we HAVE to pay $ 10 + million dollars to get Whatshisname to play the lead role , because no other lesser human can make a decent movie ( cough - what was the total production cost of Slumdog millionaire again ?
$ 250k ? ) ... No , I feel no sympathy .
And it ai n't the cellulose film that costs $ 100 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good film cameras, films, lenses, and lightning are expensive,
      Rubbish.
The movie industry has inflated itself to death.
Why would you feel sympathy for someone who has smoked 70 cigarettes a day, on receiving the news that he has cancer?
Why worry about the 500 lb man who is dying of heart disease?
It's not the price of the "film cameras, films, lenses (wait, you already charged me for the camera!
) and lighting".
The BIGGEST item on a movie's budget is MARKETING.
All those commercials on TV and radio.
All those mini "infomercials" about the "making of movie X" before the launch.
They cost money.
Then there's wages.
Why the hell must an actor earn several MILLION dollars for performing?
Then, WAY DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, there's the actual production cost for the carpenters, electricians, etc.
      Just like the investment banks that started paying themselves multi million dollar bonuses, they've inflated their professions.
Now no one wants to work for an investment bank for less, and they whine that they "HAVE TO" pay these huge bonuses to attract talent.
For movies - idem.
The marketing is a penis-stroking maneuver.
Oh I need to spend $200 million in advertising to increase my box office revenue by ...tadaa... $201 million.
Oh and we HAVE to pay $10+ million dollars to get Whatshisname to play the lead role, because no other lesser human can make a decent movie (cough - what was the total production cost of Slumdog millionaire again?
$250k?)... No, I feel no sympathy.
And it ain't the cellulose film that costs $100 million.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581364</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262097120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I was not a communist;</i></p><p>Nothing wrong with that one =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they came for the communists , and I did not speak out    because I was not a communist ; Nothing wrong with that one = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;Nothing wrong with that one =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858</id>
	<title>Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit."  - Heinlein</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future , even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest .
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law .
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back , for their private benefit .
" - Heinlein</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law.
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit.
"  - Heinlein</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766</id>
	<title>Great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262030100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now when anybody in the UK contemplates pirating from the Big Ones, he'll know they are already reimbursed for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now when anybody in the UK contemplates pirating from the Big Ones , he 'll know they are already reimbursed for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now when anybody in the UK contemplates pirating from the Big Ones, he'll know they are already reimbursed for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581192</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is Wrong and Dumb</title>
	<author>Stevecrox</author>
	<datestamp>1262095560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bill is evil, read it.<br> <br>
More than half of the bill concerns giving powers to the secretary of state over ISP's. I think the sith lords argument is "future proofing" however everything the secretary wants the ISP's to do they have to do and if they don't they get a &pound;250,000 fine from ofcom. Ofcom's roll in the bill seems to be ensuring the secretaries decrees are followed.<br> <br>
There are no checks or balances in the bill and is only concerned with internet piracy rather than the "digital economy". <br> <br>
I tried setting up an e-petition on prime ministers petition site and that's disappeared down a black hole, I've also contacted my MP who's failed to respond after more than three weeks and repeated emails.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bill is evil , read it .
More than half of the bill concerns giving powers to the secretary of state over ISP 's .
I think the sith lords argument is " future proofing " however everything the secretary wants the ISP 's to do they have to do and if they do n't they get a   250,000 fine from ofcom .
Ofcom 's roll in the bill seems to be ensuring the secretaries decrees are followed .
There are no checks or balances in the bill and is only concerned with internet piracy rather than the " digital economy " .
I tried setting up an e-petition on prime ministers petition site and that 's disappeared down a black hole , I 've also contacted my MP who 's failed to respond after more than three weeks and repeated emails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bill is evil, read it.
More than half of the bill concerns giving powers to the secretary of state over ISP's.
I think the sith lords argument is "future proofing" however everything the secretary wants the ISP's to do they have to do and if they don't they get a £250,000 fine from ofcom.
Ofcom's roll in the bill seems to be ensuring the secretaries decrees are followed.
There are no checks or balances in the bill and is only concerned with internet piracy rather than the "digital economy".
I tried setting up an e-petition on prime ministers petition site and that's disappeared down a black hole, I've also contacted my MP who's failed to respond after more than three weeks and repeated emails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583794</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you were out-voted you reach for your ammo box?  Gimme a break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you were out-voted you reach for your ammo box ?
Gim me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you were out-voted you reach for your ammo box?
Gimme a break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581442</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1262097840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ammo?  Knives don't take ammo &amp; aside from 3 round shotguns, they aren't allowed to have real weapons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ammo ?
Knives do n't take ammo &amp; aside from 3 round shotguns , they are n't allowed to have real weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ammo?
Knives don't take ammo &amp; aside from 3 round shotguns, they aren't allowed to have real weapons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581110</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>G\_REEPER</author>
	<datestamp>1262094000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no , but we are headed there at rocket speed. Folks the thing here is not to consume the product. So you do not pay the stupid tax..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , but we are headed there at rocket speed .
Folks the thing here is not to consume the product .
So you do not pay the stupid tax. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no , but we are headed there at rocket speed.
Folks the thing here is not to consume the product.
So you do not pay the stupid tax..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579868</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>mhwombat</author>
	<datestamp>1262118120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes! For instance, our Australian policy of public health care gave the American public a chance to see how such things work overseas, fortunately meaning they had ample warning about the DEATH PANELS!</p><p>Sigh. Nevermind. You're right, I'm just bitter about Conroy. It's so embarrassing; we can't take him anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes !
For instance , our Australian policy of public health care gave the American public a chance to see how such things work overseas , fortunately meaning they had ample warning about the DEATH PANELS ! Sigh .
Nevermind. You 're right , I 'm just bitter about Conroy .
It 's so embarrassing ; we ca n't take him anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!
For instance, our Australian policy of public health care gave the American public a chance to see how such things work overseas, fortunately meaning they had ample warning about the DEATH PANELS!Sigh.
Nevermind. You're right, I'm just bitter about Conroy.
It's so embarrassing; we can't take him anywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579776</id>
	<title>true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262030280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as im against RIAA, i must say that this is the right move to do. Piracy is theft, and matters of law enforcement are the governments job, not the private companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as im against RIAA , i must say that this is the right move to do .
Piracy is theft , and matters of law enforcement are the governments job , not the private companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as im against RIAA, i must say that this is the right move to do.
Piracy is theft, and matters of law enforcement are the governments job, not the private companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580588</id>
	<title>Something to consider</title>
	<author>paper tape</author>
	<datestamp>1262087340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something to consider, that the people advocating this sort of legal change rarely do, is that policy drives behavior - but not necessarily in the ways that they want it to.<br> <br>

They believe they will change the behavior of consumers by making the cost of music piracy high.<br> <br>

They may succeed in changing behavior - but likely not in the way they hope to.  Most consumers who currently pirate music will continue to do so, but they will do so using different methods so as to not be caught.<br> <br>

The OP is correct in that the music industry is attempting to use legislation to avoid having to change their business model.<br> <br>

A good example of an industry that is affected by piracy and the second-hand market in a similar way to the music industry, is the computer software industry.  The computer softeware industry has tried many of the same methodologies the music industry has to combat piracy, mainly involving various sorts of copy protection and security codes, all of which failed to curb piracy, and some of which encouraged it due to legitimate customers being locked out of their legally purchased software by overzealous security measures.<br> <br>

Like the music industry, the software industry has attemtped to use legislation to resolve their problems, and has been nearly completely unsuccessful in doing so.  For the most part, their last line of defense has been the "Inquisition" (the Business Software Alliance) which relies for the most part on disgruntled employees denouncing their employers or former employers.<br> <br>

The one bright spot in this is the computer game industry.  It is not nearly so monolithic or moneyed as the software giants or the music industry and as a result it has had to find different solutions. Though it has ridden on the coattails of the legislation sponsored and passed by the giants, it is also well aware that said legislation has not had the desired effect, nor have the standard copy protection schema - and so it has begun to move to a different business model, involving downloadable content.  While a base game may be pirated, even someone who didn't buy it needs the downloadable content to get the full experience, and the only easy way to get that is to purchase it.  This has allowed revenue generation from people who did not actually purchase the base software (in addition to those that did).<br> <br>

One effect of this new model has been a necessary improvement of the quality of the product.  If a company wants to generate revenue from downloadable add-on content, the original product must be high enough quality that people <i>want</i> that additional content, and the additional content itself must be worth spending money on.  It is also of note that while the total price of all downloadable content may be significant, <i>the individual pieces of it cost far less than the original product.</i>  The time and effort of the programmers/artists certainly deserves appropriate recompense, as does the capital risk of the production company - but the true measure of "worth" is what the market will bear.  If the music (or game) industry suddenly quintupled the price of their product because that is what they decided it was worth (even if such an increase were absolutely necessary to recoup their costs), their sales would plummet because the market would likely not agree that either was actually worth the price.<br> <br>

That concept - that the consumer sets the price of any commodity by choosing whether or not to purchase it at that price - is what the music and software industries have been trying circumvent.  Governments have the same sort of issues when they impose high taxes on goods that end at some arbitrary border - an instant trade in untaxed goods springs up between the taxed and untaxed sides of the border, which the government must then shut down to maintain its revenue.  Music and software present an additional challenge because they can be copied and moved digitally at near zero cost.<br> <br>

While some will argue that the worth of a product is directly t</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something to consider , that the people advocating this sort of legal change rarely do , is that policy drives behavior - but not necessarily in the ways that they want it to .
They believe they will change the behavior of consumers by making the cost of music piracy high .
They may succeed in changing behavior - but likely not in the way they hope to .
Most consumers who currently pirate music will continue to do so , but they will do so using different methods so as to not be caught .
The OP is correct in that the music industry is attempting to use legislation to avoid having to change their business model .
A good example of an industry that is affected by piracy and the second-hand market in a similar way to the music industry , is the computer software industry .
The computer softeware industry has tried many of the same methodologies the music industry has to combat piracy , mainly involving various sorts of copy protection and security codes , all of which failed to curb piracy , and some of which encouraged it due to legitimate customers being locked out of their legally purchased software by overzealous security measures .
Like the music industry , the software industry has attemtped to use legislation to resolve their problems , and has been nearly completely unsuccessful in doing so .
For the most part , their last line of defense has been the " Inquisition " ( the Business Software Alliance ) which relies for the most part on disgruntled employees denouncing their employers or former employers .
The one bright spot in this is the computer game industry .
It is not nearly so monolithic or moneyed as the software giants or the music industry and as a result it has had to find different solutions .
Though it has ridden on the coattails of the legislation sponsored and passed by the giants , it is also well aware that said legislation has not had the desired effect , nor have the standard copy protection schema - and so it has begun to move to a different business model , involving downloadable content .
While a base game may be pirated , even someone who did n't buy it needs the downloadable content to get the full experience , and the only easy way to get that is to purchase it .
This has allowed revenue generation from people who did not actually purchase the base software ( in addition to those that did ) .
One effect of this new model has been a necessary improvement of the quality of the product .
If a company wants to generate revenue from downloadable add-on content , the original product must be high enough quality that people want that additional content , and the additional content itself must be worth spending money on .
It is also of note that while the total price of all downloadable content may be significant , the individual pieces of it cost far less than the original product .
The time and effort of the programmers/artists certainly deserves appropriate recompense , as does the capital risk of the production company - but the true measure of " worth " is what the market will bear .
If the music ( or game ) industry suddenly quintupled the price of their product because that is what they decided it was worth ( even if such an increase were absolutely necessary to recoup their costs ) , their sales would plummet because the market would likely not agree that either was actually worth the price .
That concept - that the consumer sets the price of any commodity by choosing whether or not to purchase it at that price - is what the music and software industries have been trying circumvent .
Governments have the same sort of issues when they impose high taxes on goods that end at some arbitrary border - an instant trade in untaxed goods springs up between the taxed and untaxed sides of the border , which the government must then shut down to maintain its revenue .
Music and software present an additional challenge because they can be copied and moved digitally at near zero cost .
While some will argue that the worth of a product is directly t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something to consider, that the people advocating this sort of legal change rarely do, is that policy drives behavior - but not necessarily in the ways that they want it to.
They believe they will change the behavior of consumers by making the cost of music piracy high.
They may succeed in changing behavior - but likely not in the way they hope to.
Most consumers who currently pirate music will continue to do so, but they will do so using different methods so as to not be caught.
The OP is correct in that the music industry is attempting to use legislation to avoid having to change their business model.
A good example of an industry that is affected by piracy and the second-hand market in a similar way to the music industry, is the computer software industry.
The computer softeware industry has tried many of the same methodologies the music industry has to combat piracy, mainly involving various sorts of copy protection and security codes, all of which failed to curb piracy, and some of which encouraged it due to legitimate customers being locked out of their legally purchased software by overzealous security measures.
Like the music industry, the software industry has attemtped to use legislation to resolve their problems, and has been nearly completely unsuccessful in doing so.
For the most part, their last line of defense has been the "Inquisition" (the Business Software Alliance) which relies for the most part on disgruntled employees denouncing their employers or former employers.
The one bright spot in this is the computer game industry.
It is not nearly so monolithic or moneyed as the software giants or the music industry and as a result it has had to find different solutions.
Though it has ridden on the coattails of the legislation sponsored and passed by the giants, it is also well aware that said legislation has not had the desired effect, nor have the standard copy protection schema - and so it has begun to move to a different business model, involving downloadable content.
While a base game may be pirated, even someone who didn't buy it needs the downloadable content to get the full experience, and the only easy way to get that is to purchase it.
This has allowed revenue generation from people who did not actually purchase the base software (in addition to those that did).
One effect of this new model has been a necessary improvement of the quality of the product.
If a company wants to generate revenue from downloadable add-on content, the original product must be high enough quality that people want that additional content, and the additional content itself must be worth spending money on.
It is also of note that while the total price of all downloadable content may be significant, the individual pieces of it cost far less than the original product.
The time and effort of the programmers/artists certainly deserves appropriate recompense, as does the capital risk of the production company - but the true measure of "worth" is what the market will bear.
If the music (or game) industry suddenly quintupled the price of their product because that is what they decided it was worth (even if such an increase were absolutely necessary to recoup their costs), their sales would plummet because the market would likely not agree that either was actually worth the price.
That concept - that the consumer sets the price of any commodity by choosing whether or not to purchase it at that price - is what the music and software industries have been trying circumvent.
Governments have the same sort of issues when they impose high taxes on goods that end at some arbitrary border - an instant trade in untaxed goods springs up between the taxed and untaxed sides of the border, which the government must then shut down to maintain its revenue.
Music and software present an additional challenge because they can be copied and moved digitally at near zero cost.
While some will argue that the worth of a product is directly t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581886</id>
	<title>Re:Good example of piracy versus robbery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262101560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you are talking about Ctrl-X vs. Ctrl-C ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you are talking about Ctrl-X vs. Ctrl-C ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you are talking about Ctrl-X vs. Ctrl-C ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580214</id>
	<title>laws cost money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262080560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the entertainment industry can still bribe the government to obtain favorable laws, then maybe they're not that broke as they want people to believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the entertainment industry can still bribe the government to obtain favorable laws , then maybe they 're not that broke as they want people to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the entertainment industry can still bribe the government to obtain favorable laws, then maybe they're not that broke as they want people to believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580248</id>
	<title>it's reverse socialism!</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1262081400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is where the government pays the capitalists using taxes from the workers. Awesome!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is where the government pays the capitalists using taxes from the workers .
Awesome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is where the government pays the capitalists using taxes from the workers.
Awesome!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580328</id>
	<title>Re:This makes my day.</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1262082540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems UK residents have just payed for allot of content. I hope they download it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems UK residents have just payed for allot of content .
I hope they download it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems UK residents have just payed for allot of content.
I hope they download it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580314</id>
	<title>Know your enemy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262082240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.</p></div><p>Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in. Know your enemy. "THEY" are the <a href="http://www.iipa.com/" title="iipa.com">International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)</a> [iipa.com], and <i>they</i> have the <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/archives/2008/2008-special-301-report" title="ustr.gov">full political clout</a> [ustr.gov] of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in <a href="http://www.iipa.com/countryreports.html" title="iipa.com">just about every country in the world</a> [iipa.com] via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals. Examples: <br> <br> <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/0412225/New-Zealand-Reintroduces-3-Strikes-Lawrecent" title="slashdot.org"> New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes</a> [slashdot.org]:<br> "IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2009/november/ustr-fact-sheet-trans-pacific-partnership" title="ustr.gov">Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement</a> [ustr.gov] (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."...  "Specific <b>problems</b> in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for <a href="http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2009/2009SPEC301CHILE.pdf" title="iipa.com">Chile</a> [iipa.com], <a href="http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2009/2009SPEC301PERU.pdf" title="iipa.com">Peru</a> [iipa.com], <a href="http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2009/2009SPEC301BRUNEI.pdf" title="iipa.com">Brunei</a> [iipa.com], and <a href="http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2009/2009SPEC301VIETNAM.pdf" title="iipa.com">Vietnam</a> [iipa.com]".<br>
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.</p><p> <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/04/038259/Spains-Proposed-Internet-Law-Sparks-Protest-Change" title="slashdot.org">Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest:</a> [slashdot.org] <br>
<a href="http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2009/2009SPEC301SPAIN.pdf" title="iipa.com">IIPA report card on Spain</a> [iipa.com].  <a href="http://www.expatica.com/es/news/local\_news/Spain-not-invited-to-crisis-summit\_-says-US\_46880.html" title="expatica.com">resulting</a> [expatica.com] US political <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/white-house-con.html" title="latimes.com">clout</a> [latimes.com] result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.</p><p>
The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-United\_States\_Free\_Trade\_Agreement#Intellectual\_property" title="wikipedia.org">draconian anti-internet laws and filters</a> [wikipedia.org], obliged to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew\_Raymond\_Griffiths" title="wikipedia.org">extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case)</a> [wikipedia.org], the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly <b> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-United\_States\_Free\_Trade\_Agreement#Outcomes" title="wikipedia.org">do not benefit</a> [wikipedia.org] the countries involved!</b>  Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?
<br> <br>
The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals.  If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group. Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU , UK , Australia , or Canada doing something that would be worse.Dont ' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in .
Know your enemy .
" THEY " are the International Intellectual Property Alliance ( IIPA ) [ iipa.com ] , and they have the full political clout [ ustr.gov ] of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world [ iipa.com ] via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple .
Countries sign on to this in exchange for " Free Trade " deals .
Examples : New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes [ slashdot.org ] : " IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement [ ustr.gov ] ( TPP FTA ) with Singapore , Chile , New Zealand , Brunei Darussalam , Australia , Peru and Vietnam. " .. .
" Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile [ iipa.com ] , Peru [ iipa.com ] , Brunei [ iipa.com ] , and Vietnam [ iipa.com ] " .
Where " specific problems " mean : No three strikes laws , no trade deal .
Spain 's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest : [ slashdot.org ] IIPA report card on Spain [ iipa.com ] .
resulting [ expatica.com ] US political clout [ latimes.com ] result : local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry .
The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade " deals " are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters [ wikipedia.org ] , obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial ( software piracy in this case ) [ wikipedia.org ] , the resulting " Free Trade " agreement rewards generaly do not benefit [ wikipedia.org ] the countries involved !
Which begs the question , who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal ?
The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals .
If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet , then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group .
Seems only fair - should n't be able to have their cake and eat it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in.
Know your enemy.
"THEY" are the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) [iipa.com], and they have the full political clout [ustr.gov] of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world [iipa.com] via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple.
Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals.
Examples:    New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes [slashdot.org]: "IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement [ustr.gov] (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."...
"Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile [iipa.com], Peru [iipa.com], Brunei [iipa.com], and Vietnam [iipa.com]".
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.
Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest: [slashdot.org] 
IIPA report card on Spain [iipa.com].
resulting [expatica.com] US political clout [latimes.com] result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.
The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters [wikipedia.org], obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case) [wikipedia.org], the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly  do not benefit [wikipedia.org] the countries involved!
Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?
The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals.
If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group.
Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579972</id>
	<title>Re:I just wonder...</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1262119380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much of this money will the artist see? Wouldn't suprise me if it was zero.</p></div><p>Of course they will see this money!</p><p>In the millions and millions of sales produced by the erradication of piracy. Obviously.</p><p>See, for each extra 25 pounds you pay to the ISP, a pirate is forced to spend 50 on music. Of those 50, the UK media company takes 20 and the artist's company, which currently resides in the United States will receive the other 30. Of those 30, the artist will see 1.25.</p><p>It's all so cristal clear I'm amazed they didn't create the law before the ISPs even existed. After all, you could've sung a song on the phone, stopping a pirate from buying it three of four times.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of this money will the artist see ?
Would n't suprise me if it was zero.Of course they will see this money ! In the millions and millions of sales produced by the erradication of piracy .
Obviously.See , for each extra 25 pounds you pay to the ISP , a pirate is forced to spend 50 on music .
Of those 50 , the UK media company takes 20 and the artist 's company , which currently resides in the United States will receive the other 30 .
Of those 30 , the artist will see 1.25.It 's all so cristal clear I 'm amazed they did n't create the law before the ISPs even existed .
After all , you could 've sung a song on the phone , stopping a pirate from buying it three of four times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of this money will the artist see?
Wouldn't suprise me if it was zero.Of course they will see this money!In the millions and millions of sales produced by the erradication of piracy.
Obviously.See, for each extra 25 pounds you pay to the ISP, a pirate is forced to spend 50 on music.
Of those 50, the UK media company takes 20 and the artist's company, which currently resides in the United States will receive the other 30.
Of those 30, the artist will see 1.25.It's all so cristal clear I'm amazed they didn't create the law before the ISPs even existed.
After all, you could've sung a song on the phone, stopping a pirate from buying it three of four times.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579820</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30591694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30586030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30637872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30587848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30586454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30586692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30594044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30588456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30591728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0110253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580320
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30588456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30591694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30582940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30594044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30583680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30637872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30586454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30587848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30591728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30586030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30586692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30585122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30581886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30580958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30584666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0110253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0110253.30579780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
