<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_31_2255212</id>
	<title>What <em>Would</em> Have Entered the Public Domain Tomorrow?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262256900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Duke's Center for the Study of the Public Domain about items that <a href="http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976">would enter the public domain starting on January 1, 2010</a>, if not for copyright extenions: <i>"'Casino Royale, Marilyn Monroe's Playboy cover, The Adventures of Augie March, the Golden Age of Science Fiction, Crick &amp; Watson's Nature article decoding the double helix, Disney's Peter Pan, The Crucible'... 'How ironic that Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, with its book burning firemen, was published in 1953 and would once have been entering the public domain on January 1, 2010. To quote James Boyle, "Bradbury's firemen at least set fire to their own culture out of deep ideological commitment, vile though it may have been. We have set fire to our cultural record for no reason; even if we had wanted retrospectively to enrich the tiny number of beneficiaries whose work keeps commercial value beyond 56 years, we could have done so without these effects. The ironies are almost too painful to contemplate.""</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Duke 's Center for the Study of the Public Domain about items that would enter the public domain starting on January 1 , 2010 , if not for copyright extenions : " 'Casino Royale , Marilyn Monroe 's Playboy cover , The Adventures of Augie March , the Golden Age of Science Fiction , Crick &amp; Watson 's Nature article decoding the double helix , Disney 's Peter Pan , The Crucible'... 'How ironic that Ray Bradbury 's Fahrenheit 451 , with its book burning firemen , was published in 1953 and would once have been entering the public domain on January 1 , 2010 .
To quote James Boyle , " Bradbury 's firemen at least set fire to their own culture out of deep ideological commitment , vile though it may have been .
We have set fire to our cultural record for no reason ; even if we had wanted retrospectively to enrich the tiny number of beneficiaries whose work keeps commercial value beyond 56 years , we could have done so without these effects .
The ironies are almost too painful to contemplate .
" "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Duke's Center for the Study of the Public Domain about items that would enter the public domain starting on January 1, 2010, if not for copyright extenions: "'Casino Royale, Marilyn Monroe's Playboy cover, The Adventures of Augie March, the Golden Age of Science Fiction, Crick &amp; Watson's Nature article decoding the double helix, Disney's Peter Pan, The Crucible'... 'How ironic that Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, with its book burning firemen, was published in 1953 and would once have been entering the public domain on January 1, 2010.
To quote James Boyle, "Bradbury's firemen at least set fire to their own culture out of deep ideological commitment, vile though it may have been.
We have set fire to our cultural record for no reason; even if we had wanted retrospectively to enrich the tiny number of beneficiaries whose work keeps commercial value beyond 56 years, we could have done so without these effects.
The ironies are almost too painful to contemplate.
""</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610992</id>
	<title>Re:Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1262263080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the fact is that, once a work is in the public domain, you are free to distribute it any way you please.  So yes, so big chain could print off a ton of copies and profit from them (and in a way that happens, Shakespeare's been in the public domain for over four hundred years, and yet publishers still put out copies of everything from single plays to whole the damned Folio).  But even if one can publish and sell for profit these books, at that same time I can go to Project Gutenberg and download my own copy, and it's perfectly legitimate.</p><p>However, I'm thinking of writing a speculative fiction story where big publishing houses and media firms convince Congress to allow them to buy up public domain works, and then go after anyone who has an illegitimate copy of Henry V.  What scares me is maybe it'll come true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the fact is that , once a work is in the public domain , you are free to distribute it any way you please .
So yes , so big chain could print off a ton of copies and profit from them ( and in a way that happens , Shakespeare 's been in the public domain for over four hundred years , and yet publishers still put out copies of everything from single plays to whole the damned Folio ) .
But even if one can publish and sell for profit these books , at that same time I can go to Project Gutenberg and download my own copy , and it 's perfectly legitimate.However , I 'm thinking of writing a speculative fiction story where big publishing houses and media firms convince Congress to allow them to buy up public domain works , and then go after anyone who has an illegitimate copy of Henry V. What scares me is maybe it 'll come true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the fact is that, once a work is in the public domain, you are free to distribute it any way you please.
So yes, so big chain could print off a ton of copies and profit from them (and in a way that happens, Shakespeare's been in the public domain for over four hundred years, and yet publishers still put out copies of everything from single plays to whole the damned Folio).
But even if one can publish and sell for profit these books, at that same time I can go to Project Gutenberg and download my own copy, and it's perfectly legitimate.However, I'm thinking of writing a speculative fiction story where big publishing houses and media firms convince Congress to allow them to buy up public domain works, and then go after anyone who has an illegitimate copy of Henry V.  What scares me is maybe it'll come true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611402</id>
	<title>Re:A book my great-great-grandmother wrote</title>
	<author>broken\_chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1262267100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most authors retain the copyright to their own works (unlike anyone involved with music or movies). Chances are your great-great grandmother held the original copyright, and it's now held by her estate or a descendant. I'm not very familiar with how wills work, but, if it wasn't explicitly mentioned, it probably passed to her husband or child(ren) when she died. It's <em>likely</em> still in your family, somewhere.</p><p>If you can track down your great-great grandmother's will (and possibly the wills of those who her possessions went to, you can probably figure it out with a little work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most authors retain the copyright to their own works ( unlike anyone involved with music or movies ) .
Chances are your great-great grandmother held the original copyright , and it 's now held by her estate or a descendant .
I 'm not very familiar with how wills work , but , if it was n't explicitly mentioned , it probably passed to her husband or child ( ren ) when she died .
It 's likely still in your family , somewhere.If you can track down your great-great grandmother 's will ( and possibly the wills of those who her possessions went to , you can probably figure it out with a little work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most authors retain the copyright to their own works (unlike anyone involved with music or movies).
Chances are your great-great grandmother held the original copyright, and it's now held by her estate or a descendant.
I'm not very familiar with how wills work, but, if it wasn't explicitly mentioned, it probably passed to her husband or child(ren) when she died.
It's likely still in your family, somewhere.If you can track down your great-great grandmother's will (and possibly the wills of those who her possessions went to, you can probably figure it out with a little work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611356</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>berwiki</author>
	<datestamp>1262266620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen brother.
<br> <br>
Happy new year I suppose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen brother .
Happy new year I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen brother.
Happy new year I suppose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613514</id>
	<title>Re:Bring back copyright renewal</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1230817260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you are advocating is nothing new. It is the return of the constitutional copyright regime, which was superceded by the berne convention laws we have now. Revoking our assent to the berne convention would be the logical first step to that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are advocating is nothing new .
It is the return of the constitutional copyright regime , which was superceded by the berne convention laws we have now .
Revoking our assent to the berne convention would be the logical first step to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are advocating is nothing new.
It is the return of the constitutional copyright regime, which was superceded by the berne convention laws we have now.
Revoking our assent to the berne convention would be the logical first step to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610918</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Stolovaya</author>
	<datestamp>1262262360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any idea when the latest copyright law/extensions were voted in and who voted for what? I would like to see if anyone I can make a vote for/against was part of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any idea when the latest copyright law/extensions were voted in and who voted for what ?
I would like to see if anyone I can make a vote for/against was part of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any idea when the latest copyright law/extensions were voted in and who voted for what?
I would like to see if anyone I can make a vote for/against was part of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30630800</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>jsiren</author>
	<datestamp>1230983220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When Linux reaches the public domain, would people have the right to distribute modifications in binary form only?</p></div><p>Certainly. Let's say the copyright period were 28 years. If somebody wanted to release binary-only modifications to Linux 1.0 (released in 1994) in 2022, they would certainly be free to do so. Or if somebody wanted to create a proprietary, binary-only Linux kernel, they would only have to trail the GPL kernel by 28 years.</p><p>The point of doing either of the above would be...?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Linux reaches the public domain , would people have the right to distribute modifications in binary form only ? Certainly .
Let 's say the copyright period were 28 years .
If somebody wanted to release binary-only modifications to Linux 1.0 ( released in 1994 ) in 2022 , they would certainly be free to do so .
Or if somebody wanted to create a proprietary , binary-only Linux kernel , they would only have to trail the GPL kernel by 28 years.The point of doing either of the above would be... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Linux reaches the public domain, would people have the right to distribute modifications in binary form only?Certainly.
Let's say the copyright period were 28 years.
If somebody wanted to release binary-only modifications to Linux 1.0 (released in 1994) in 2022, they would certainly be free to do so.
Or if somebody wanted to create a proprietary, binary-only Linux kernel, they would only have to trail the GPL kernel by 28 years.The point of doing either of the above would be...?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028</id>
	<title>Berne Convention</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1262263680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.</p></div><p>One condition of joining the World Trade Organization is joining the Berne Convention, which appears to ban countries from requiring a renewal or any other formality from a copyright owner. Reintroducing copyright renewal might require the United States to withdraw from the WTO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.One condition of joining the World Trade Organization is joining the Berne Convention , which appears to ban countries from requiring a renewal or any other formality from a copyright owner .
Reintroducing copyright renewal might require the United States to withdraw from the WTO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.One condition of joining the World Trade Organization is joining the Berne Convention, which appears to ban countries from requiring a renewal or any other formality from a copyright owner.
Reintroducing copyright renewal might require the United States to withdraw from the WTO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611346</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262266500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing I think about that truly shows how long 28 years is, is video games.</p><p>http://www.infoplease.com/spot/gamestimeline1.html</p><p>28 years ago in 1982 "Atari releases the Atari 5200 to compete with Coleco's Colecovision." And yet we, due to the 56 year copyright law, will not be allowed to download roms of it until the PS7 comes out if they're copyrighted for the full 56 years.</p><p>Oh joy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing I think about that truly shows how long 28 years is , is video games.http : //www.infoplease.com/spot/gamestimeline1.html28 years ago in 1982 " Atari releases the Atari 5200 to compete with Coleco 's Colecovision .
" And yet we , due to the 56 year copyright law , will not be allowed to download roms of it until the PS7 comes out if they 're copyrighted for the full 56 years.Oh joy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing I think about that truly shows how long 28 years is, is video games.http://www.infoplease.com/spot/gamestimeline1.html28 years ago in 1982 "Atari releases the Atari 5200 to compete with Coleco's Colecovision.
" And yet we, due to the 56 year copyright law, will not be allowed to download roms of it until the PS7 comes out if they're copyrighted for the full 56 years.Oh joy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610848</id>
	<title>Re:Offensive</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1262261760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a real reason for this that has nothing to do with any biases: There wasn't much by way of feminist literature being written in 1954. This was a full decade before such classics as <i>The Feminine Mystique</i>, and in the realm of speculative fiction predates McCaffrey or LeGuin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a real reason for this that has nothing to do with any biases : There was n't much by way of feminist literature being written in 1954 .
This was a full decade before such classics as The Feminine Mystique , and in the realm of speculative fiction predates McCaffrey or LeGuin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a real reason for this that has nothing to do with any biases: There wasn't much by way of feminist literature being written in 1954.
This was a full decade before such classics as The Feminine Mystique, and in the realm of speculative fiction predates McCaffrey or LeGuin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611228</id>
	<title>Re:Boyle's logic failure</title>
	<author>Andorin</author>
	<datestamp>1262265420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is a limiting of the works for the benefit of the copyright holders, but the works still exist and are accessible. The works are even available at lending libraries.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Do you really think that every creative work produced since the 1920s or so is easily available today? And even if there is a copy in some library, that copy is still bound to physical limitations- just because the one copy exists doesn't mean anyone can access it. Not so online, and if these works were in the public domain, they <i>could</i> be legally and freely available online. But since some insanely low number (something like 6\%) of works created in the 1920s era are commercially viable and therefore commercially available, a vast majority of that 94\% of "non-viable" works are pretty much nonexistent.<br>
<br>
Big Content opposes proposed laws that enrich the public domain, even if said laws have little to no effect on their own IP. What else could they be besides usurpers of the public domain and, by extension, our culture?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a limiting of the works for the benefit of the copyright holders , but the works still exist and are accessible .
The works are even available at lending libraries .
Do you really think that every creative work produced since the 1920s or so is easily available today ?
And even if there is a copy in some library , that copy is still bound to physical limitations- just because the one copy exists does n't mean anyone can access it .
Not so online , and if these works were in the public domain , they could be legally and freely available online .
But since some insanely low number ( something like 6 \ % ) of works created in the 1920s era are commercially viable and therefore commercially available , a vast majority of that 94 \ % of " non-viable " works are pretty much nonexistent .
Big Content opposes proposed laws that enrich the public domain , even if said laws have little to no effect on their own IP .
What else could they be besides usurpers of the public domain and , by extension , our culture ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a limiting of the works for the benefit of the copyright holders, but the works still exist and are accessible.
The works are even available at lending libraries.
Do you really think that every creative work produced since the 1920s or so is easily available today?
And even if there is a copy in some library, that copy is still bound to physical limitations- just because the one copy exists doesn't mean anyone can access it.
Not so online, and if these works were in the public domain, they could be legally and freely available online.
But since some insanely low number (something like 6\%) of works created in the 1920s era are commercially viable and therefore commercially available, a vast majority of that 94\% of "non-viable" works are pretty much nonexistent.
Big Content opposes proposed laws that enrich the public domain, even if said laws have little to no effect on their own IP.
What else could they be besides usurpers of the public domain and, by extension, our culture?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611832</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262272140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An <i>ex post facto</i> law here, in legal terms, means that Congress cannot pass a law saying that what you did yesterday is illegal, and then arrest you for it.  Likewise, it would prevent them from placing works that had entered the public domain from exiting it&mdash;especially if you had already taken advantage of said status.  It notably does not mean that they cannot pass a law extending the copyright terms, which is more analogous to changing the legal driving age after you're born.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An ex post facto law here , in legal terms , means that Congress can not pass a law saying that what you did yesterday is illegal , and then arrest you for it .
Likewise , it would prevent them from placing works that had entered the public domain from exiting it    especially if you had already taken advantage of said status .
It notably does not mean that they can not pass a law extending the copyright terms , which is more analogous to changing the legal driving age after you 're born .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An ex post facto law here, in legal terms, means that Congress cannot pass a law saying that what you did yesterday is illegal, and then arrest you for it.
Likewise, it would prevent them from placing works that had entered the public domain from exiting it—especially if you had already taken advantage of said status.
It notably does not mean that they cannot pass a law extending the copyright terms, which is more analogous to changing the legal driving age after you're born.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610930</id>
	<title>Re:Offensive</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1262262540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad to see you are offended.  You might check out some early feminist literature - I refer specifically to a book called "The Woman Who Did".  After reading this you will understand why nobody is interested in feminist literature before about 1960 or so. Depressing and whacked-out come to mind to describe this early version of the genre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad to see you are offended .
You might check out some early feminist literature - I refer specifically to a book called " The Woman Who Did " .
After reading this you will understand why nobody is interested in feminist literature before about 1960 or so .
Depressing and whacked-out come to mind to describe this early version of the genre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad to see you are offended.
You might check out some early feminist literature - I refer specifically to a book called "The Woman Who Did".
After reading this you will understand why nobody is interested in feminist literature before about 1960 or so.
Depressing and whacked-out come to mind to describe this early version of the genre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611904</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262273520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good news is, we're doing a good job of running all the content creators out of business, so that the giant corporations who own the pipes (AT&amp;T, Verizon, Comcast) and the data centers and search engines (Google, Amazon) are making all the money.</p><p>It's great that Google and Amazon are collecting cross-referenced, line-item information about every one of us and our buying/internet  behavior, what that means is they can serve us better with targeted marketing and such.  And I just love mailing off $60 every month to the cable guys for their wonderful service.  And that'll probably go up this year, but hey, it's worth it for what we're getting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news is , we 're doing a good job of running all the content creators out of business , so that the giant corporations who own the pipes ( AT&amp;T , Verizon , Comcast ) and the data centers and search engines ( Google , Amazon ) are making all the money.It 's great that Google and Amazon are collecting cross-referenced , line-item information about every one of us and our buying/internet behavior , what that means is they can serve us better with targeted marketing and such .
And I just love mailing off $ 60 every month to the cable guys for their wonderful service .
And that 'll probably go up this year , but hey , it 's worth it for what we 're getting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news is, we're doing a good job of running all the content creators out of business, so that the giant corporations who own the pipes (AT&amp;T, Verizon, Comcast) and the data centers and search engines (Google, Amazon) are making all the money.It's great that Google and Amazon are collecting cross-referenced, line-item information about every one of us and our buying/internet  behavior, what that means is they can serve us better with targeted marketing and such.
And I just love mailing off $60 every month to the cable guys for their wonderful service.
And that'll probably go up this year, but hey, it's worth it for what we're getting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611678</id>
	<title>Re:Congress is Working Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262270100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here we go, the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman.  Congress works fantastically well if you're willing to invest in it.  The return on a few hundred thousand bucks can reach into the billions, as the entertainment, weaponry, and banking/gambling industries have shown -- go find any other investment with that sort of ROI.  Stop yer socialist whining -- Congress does a fantastic job when it's made worth its while.</p></div><p>Lack of cash shouldn't be a problem.  Oughta be able to get a loan on for an investment like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go , the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman .
Congress works fantastically well if you 're willing to invest in it .
The return on a few hundred thousand bucks can reach into the billions , as the entertainment , weaponry , and banking/gambling industries have shown -- go find any other investment with that sort of ROI .
Stop yer socialist whining -- Congress does a fantastic job when it 's made worth its while.Lack of cash should n't be a problem .
Oughta be able to get a loan on for an investment like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go, the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman.
Congress works fantastically well if you're willing to invest in it.
The return on a few hundred thousand bucks can reach into the billions, as the entertainment, weaponry, and banking/gambling industries have shown -- go find any other investment with that sort of ROI.
Stop yer socialist whining -- Congress does a fantastic job when it's made worth its while.Lack of cash shouldn't be a problem.
Oughta be able to get a loan on for an investment like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611556</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262268600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did the tree do?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did the tree do ?
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did the tree do?
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613744</id>
	<title>Re:One hour to go (UTC)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230820800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The net does.  The problem is that the web doesn't; most people see the two as synonymous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The net does .
The problem is that the web does n't ; most people see the two as synonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The net does.
The problem is that the web doesn't; most people see the two as synonymous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612508</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262283240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These copyright "extensions" are nothing more than another government bailout.</p><p>Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.  There wasn't even the possibility that they'd put the good of the citizens above the good of corporations.</p></div><p>Any legislator should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.<br>There.  I fixed it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These copyright " extensions " are nothing more than another government bailout.Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office , no matter their party affiliation .
There was n't even the possibility that they 'd put the good of the citizens above the good of corporations.Any legislator should be voted out of office , no matter their party affiliation.There .
I fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These copyright "extensions" are nothing more than another government bailout.Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.
There wasn't even the possibility that they'd put the good of the citizens above the good of corporations.Any legislator should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.There.
I fixed it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610838</id>
	<title>Curse You Purchased Politicians</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1262261700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been wanting to read J.D. Salinger's Nine Stories. It would have been lovely to find it on Project Gutenberg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been wanting to read J.D .
Salinger 's Nine Stories .
It would have been lovely to find it on Project Gutenberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been wanting to read J.D.
Salinger's Nine Stories.
It would have been lovely to find it on Project Gutenberg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611336</id>
	<title>Re:Boyle's logic failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262266440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His statement is not a fallacy. It is an outright lie.</p></div><p>It is something known as a metaphor. Copyright makes many works unavailable to lots of people, just like burning works would.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His statement is not a fallacy .
It is an outright lie.It is something known as a metaphor .
Copyright makes many works unavailable to lots of people , just like burning works would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His statement is not a fallacy.
It is an outright lie.It is something known as a metaphor.
Copyright makes many works unavailable to lots of people, just like burning works would.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612212</id>
	<title>Re:Congress is Working Well</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1262278020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Here we go, the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman."</p><p>The people can afford political power if they work together and support effective lobbyists such as the National Rifle Organization.</p><p>As the slogan goes, "I'm the NRA and I vote!".</p><p><a href="http://www.nraila.org/" title="nraila.org">http://www.nraila.org/</a> [nraila.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Here we go , the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman .
" The people can afford political power if they work together and support effective lobbyists such as the National Rifle Organization.As the slogan goes , " I 'm the NRA and I vote !
" .http : //www.nraila.org/ [ nraila.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Here we go, the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman.
"The people can afford political power if they work together and support effective lobbyists such as the National Rifle Organization.As the slogan goes, "I'm the NRA and I vote!
".http://www.nraila.org/ [nraila.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612806</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1230840180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People lived an average of 35 years because for every guy who lived to be 70 there was a baby who died at childbirth. In truth, life expectancy for those who manage to reach adulthood hasn't changed much for the last thousand years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People lived an average of 35 years because for every guy who lived to be 70 there was a baby who died at childbirth .
In truth , life expectancy for those who manage to reach adulthood has n't changed much for the last thousand years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People lived an average of 35 years because for every guy who lived to be 70 there was a baby who died at childbirth.
In truth, life expectancy for those who manage to reach adulthood hasn't changed much for the last thousand years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611976</id>
	<title>Re:Offensive</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1262274600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest there wasn't that much feminist lit that many years ago compared to all the other stuff from that same time period.   Plus maybe all of the feminist lit DID enter public dmain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest there was n't that much feminist lit that many years ago compared to all the other stuff from that same time period .
Plus maybe all of the feminist lit DID enter public dmain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest there wasn't that much feminist lit that many years ago compared to all the other stuff from that same time period.
Plus maybe all of the feminist lit DID enter public dmain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611312</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>spottedkangaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1262266140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>AFAIK, that section is interpreted (sadly SCOTUS has more of a say in this than you do) to mean criminal law and has no bearing in civil law -- which is what we're talking about here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , that section is interpreted ( sadly SCOTUS has more of a say in this than you do ) to mean criminal law and has no bearing in civil law -- which is what we 're talking about here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, that section is interpreted (sadly SCOTUS has more of a say in this than you do) to mean criminal law and has no bearing in civil law -- which is what we're talking about here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611358</id>
	<title>Selection</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1262266620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My library doesn't have access to every work ever made.  Neither does the Internet but that comes closer.  And if I copyrighted my name which perhaps is the same as yours you'd better not give it to your kid or I'll sue you and put you into a re-instated debtor's prison.  Forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My library does n't have access to every work ever made .
Neither does the Internet but that comes closer .
And if I copyrighted my name which perhaps is the same as yours you 'd better not give it to your kid or I 'll sue you and put you into a re-instated debtor 's prison .
Forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My library doesn't have access to every work ever made.
Neither does the Internet but that comes closer.
And if I copyrighted my name which perhaps is the same as yours you'd better not give it to your kid or I'll sue you and put you into a re-instated debtor's prison.
Forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611134</id>
	<title>GPL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262264640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GNU General Public License (GPL) is the appropriate response to draconian copyright law. If they want to make copyright with indefinite length and draconian punishments for violators, then GPL becomes the new public domain.</p><p>In some senses, this new GPL Domain is better than the public domain, precisely because it is "viral". Anything based on the public domain need not acknowledge its heritage, but anything based on the GPL Domain requires it.</p><p>At first, the content pool is small, but as it grows and becomes the richest and easiest material to re-use, it reaches critical mass. And pity the poor corporations who touch a GPL work and try to call it their own, as they are now hoisted on their own petard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GNU General Public License ( GPL ) is the appropriate response to draconian copyright law .
If they want to make copyright with indefinite length and draconian punishments for violators , then GPL becomes the new public domain.In some senses , this new GPL Domain is better than the public domain , precisely because it is " viral " .
Anything based on the public domain need not acknowledge its heritage , but anything based on the GPL Domain requires it.At first , the content pool is small , but as it grows and becomes the richest and easiest material to re-use , it reaches critical mass .
And pity the poor corporations who touch a GPL work and try to call it their own , as they are now hoisted on their own petard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GNU General Public License (GPL) is the appropriate response to draconian copyright law.
If they want to make copyright with indefinite length and draconian punishments for violators, then GPL becomes the new public domain.In some senses, this new GPL Domain is better than the public domain, precisely because it is "viral".
Anything based on the public domain need not acknowledge its heritage, but anything based on the GPL Domain requires it.At first, the content pool is small, but as it grows and becomes the richest and easiest material to re-use, it reaches critical mass.
And pity the poor corporations who touch a GPL work and try to call it their own, as they are now hoisted on their own petard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611480</id>
	<title>Re:Do they care?</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1262267880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be embarrassed too.. but I think what we're seeing is money grubbing heirs and "content owners" crying about copyright terms, not the original creators.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be embarrassed too.. but I think what we 're seeing is money grubbing heirs and " content owners " crying about copyright terms , not the original creators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be embarrassed too.. but I think what we're seeing is money grubbing heirs and "content owners" crying about copyright terms, not the original creators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30618042</id>
	<title>Re:Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>uninformedLuddite</author>
	<datestamp>1230819180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ten points if you know in which companies DRM version of GWTW the South wins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten points if you know in which companies DRM version of GWTW the South wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten points if you know in which companies DRM version of GWTW the South wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611232</id>
	<title>Re:Boyle's logic failure</title>
	<author>mrnobo1024</author>
	<datestamp>1262265420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For old obscure out-of-print books, it's often effectively impossible to access them because no bookstore or library has them. For all practical purposes, they <b>have</b> been destroyed from the cultural record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For old obscure out-of-print books , it 's often effectively impossible to access them because no bookstore or library has them .
For all practical purposes , they have been destroyed from the cultural record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For old obscure out-of-print books, it's often effectively impossible to access them because no bookstore or library has them.
For all practical purposes, they have been destroyed from the cultural record.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611110</id>
	<title>Re:Offensive</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1262264400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Don't be offended by Slashdot.  Be offended by Duke University.  That's where the quoted text was from.  There are other reasons to be offended by some members of the Slashdot crowd in the same realm.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; If you read the story, women are mentioned also.  It doesn't appear to be a male biased article.  Most likely it wasn't heavily researched for the sake of gender bias, but more of a reflection of works that the author recognized from a big list.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There were <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr\_adv\_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&amp;unfiltered=1&amp;field-keywords=&amp;field-author=&amp;field-title=&amp;field-isbn=&amp;field-publisher=&amp;node=&amp;url=&amp;field-feature\_browse-bin=&amp;field-binding\_browse-bin=&amp;field-subject=&amp;field-language=&amp;field-dateop=After&amp;field-datemod=1&amp;field-dateyear=1953&amp;sort=daterank&amp;Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=41&amp;Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=16" title="amazon.com">a lot of books</a> [amazon.com] published, and they couldn't possibly mention them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be offended by Slashdot .
Be offended by Duke University .
That 's where the quoted text was from .
There are other reasons to be offended by some members of the Slashdot crowd in the same realm .
    If you read the story , women are mentioned also .
It does n't appear to be a male biased article .
Most likely it was n't heavily researched for the sake of gender bias , but more of a reflection of works that the author recognized from a big list .
    There were a lot of books [ amazon.com ] published , and they could n't possibly mention them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Don't be offended by Slashdot.
Be offended by Duke University.
That's where the quoted text was from.
There are other reasons to be offended by some members of the Slashdot crowd in the same realm.
    If you read the story, women are mentioned also.
It doesn't appear to be a male biased article.
Most likely it wasn't heavily researched for the sake of gender bias, but more of a reflection of works that the author recognized from a big list.
    There were a lot of books [amazon.com] published, and they couldn't possibly mention them all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611648</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1262269740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Any legislator that voted for these <b>retroactive</b> extensions should be <b>arrested</b>.</p></div><p>Fixed that.</p><p>US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 3:</p><p>"No bill of attainder or <b>ex post facto law</b> shall be passed."</p><p>Congress broke the biggest law.</p></div><p>Not to mention making a mockery or the "limited time" phrase in Art. I, Sect. 8.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any legislator that voted for these retroactive extensions should be arrested.Fixed that.US Constitution , Article 1 , Section 9 , paragraph 3 : " No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed .
" Congress broke the biggest law.Not to mention making a mockery or the " limited time " phrase in Art .
I , Sect .
8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any legislator that voted for these retroactive extensions should be arrested.Fixed that.US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 3:"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
"Congress broke the biggest law.Not to mention making a mockery or the "limited time" phrase in Art.
I, Sect.
8.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613162</id>
	<title>Catching up with times</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1230808140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Several people have come here insisting that public domain is not about getting free stuff but accumulating a cultural context to build upon it and create new stuff, it is true but. what if I want to rip or redistribute the original work? is it inherently wrong?</p><p>Not long ago, the only way to transfer the experience of traveling to another country was narrating it, repetitively. If you were  really good describing scenery with words you could write it down. If you were good at drawing you could try to make some sketches.</p><p>Not anymore, now we take pictures and video, we are the multimedia generation. Even better, we can transmit this data to anywhere in the planet almost for free almost instantaneously.</p><p>We could understand this as an example of human evolution, as if our sensory organs, mental retention and expressive abilities were directly evolved.</p><p>Not long ago, if you saw a play on the theater and wanted to transmit the experience you'd have to reinterpret every character and dialog as best as you could.</p><p>Nowadays, if you do the equivalent of going to the theater, going to the movie theater, and wanted transmit this  experience to someone all you have to do is give them a torrent of the movie you saw.</p><p>Except you aren't allowed to do that.</p><p>The same technological evolution that upgraded you from human to super human a second ago is outlawed when it comes to copyright. In fact you can't even remember it for yourself with technology, you have to rely in your biological memory.</p><p>Access to the information, each access to the information is now owned by someone.</p><p>The typical rebuttal/mockery of this line of thought is that you could access to this information for a modicum price, to call you a cheapo who wouldn't pay for a movie ticket and such.</p><p>But if you saw digital recording/replay/transmission as an extension of your own being, as I do, you'd understand that you are basically asking me to accept an intermediary between me and my brain. An intermediary with the capacity to both, impose control or charge for use, any use, every use.</p><p>This is particularly obvious to me with things like classical music. The music itself is public domain but the interpretation is not. If I want to remember a piece -legally- my only options are to either only rely on my biological memory or accept a gatekeeper.</p><p>That I'm not allowed to digitally store everything I see and hear seems like a horrible intrusion from the government and a obstacle for our evolution.</p><p>I know some will find this a delusional rant, but I really fear that unless there is a shift in political power, the first full brain machine interface we'll see will also be the first DRM'ed brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several people have come here insisting that public domain is not about getting free stuff but accumulating a cultural context to build upon it and create new stuff , it is true but .
what if I want to rip or redistribute the original work ?
is it inherently wrong ? Not long ago , the only way to transfer the experience of traveling to another country was narrating it , repetitively .
If you were really good describing scenery with words you could write it down .
If you were good at drawing you could try to make some sketches.Not anymore , now we take pictures and video , we are the multimedia generation .
Even better , we can transmit this data to anywhere in the planet almost for free almost instantaneously.We could understand this as an example of human evolution , as if our sensory organs , mental retention and expressive abilities were directly evolved.Not long ago , if you saw a play on the theater and wanted to transmit the experience you 'd have to reinterpret every character and dialog as best as you could.Nowadays , if you do the equivalent of going to the theater , going to the movie theater , and wanted transmit this experience to someone all you have to do is give them a torrent of the movie you saw.Except you are n't allowed to do that.The same technological evolution that upgraded you from human to super human a second ago is outlawed when it comes to copyright .
In fact you ca n't even remember it for yourself with technology , you have to rely in your biological memory.Access to the information , each access to the information is now owned by someone.The typical rebuttal/mockery of this line of thought is that you could access to this information for a modicum price , to call you a cheapo who would n't pay for a movie ticket and such.But if you saw digital recording/replay/transmission as an extension of your own being , as I do , you 'd understand that you are basically asking me to accept an intermediary between me and my brain .
An intermediary with the capacity to both , impose control or charge for use , any use , every use.This is particularly obvious to me with things like classical music .
The music itself is public domain but the interpretation is not .
If I want to remember a piece -legally- my only options are to either only rely on my biological memory or accept a gatekeeper.That I 'm not allowed to digitally store everything I see and hear seems like a horrible intrusion from the government and a obstacle for our evolution.I know some will find this a delusional rant , but I really fear that unless there is a shift in political power , the first full brain machine interface we 'll see will also be the first DRM'ed brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several people have come here insisting that public domain is not about getting free stuff but accumulating a cultural context to build upon it and create new stuff, it is true but.
what if I want to rip or redistribute the original work?
is it inherently wrong?Not long ago, the only way to transfer the experience of traveling to another country was narrating it, repetitively.
If you were  really good describing scenery with words you could write it down.
If you were good at drawing you could try to make some sketches.Not anymore, now we take pictures and video, we are the multimedia generation.
Even better, we can transmit this data to anywhere in the planet almost for free almost instantaneously.We could understand this as an example of human evolution, as if our sensory organs, mental retention and expressive abilities were directly evolved.Not long ago, if you saw a play on the theater and wanted to transmit the experience you'd have to reinterpret every character and dialog as best as you could.Nowadays, if you do the equivalent of going to the theater, going to the movie theater, and wanted transmit this  experience to someone all you have to do is give them a torrent of the movie you saw.Except you aren't allowed to do that.The same technological evolution that upgraded you from human to super human a second ago is outlawed when it comes to copyright.
In fact you can't even remember it for yourself with technology, you have to rely in your biological memory.Access to the information, each access to the information is now owned by someone.The typical rebuttal/mockery of this line of thought is that you could access to this information for a modicum price, to call you a cheapo who wouldn't pay for a movie ticket and such.But if you saw digital recording/replay/transmission as an extension of your own being, as I do, you'd understand that you are basically asking me to accept an intermediary between me and my brain.
An intermediary with the capacity to both, impose control or charge for use, any use, every use.This is particularly obvious to me with things like classical music.
The music itself is public domain but the interpretation is not.
If I want to remember a piece -legally- my only options are to either only rely on my biological memory or accept a gatekeeper.That I'm not allowed to digitally store everything I see and hear seems like a horrible intrusion from the government and a obstacle for our evolution.I know some will find this a delusional rant, but I really fear that unless there is a shift in political power, the first full brain machine interface we'll see will also be the first DRM'ed brain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611798</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262271840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Civil laws are retroactively applied all the time.  The constitutional ex post facto clause only applies to penal laws,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Civil laws are retroactively applied all the time .
The constitutional ex post facto clause only applies to penal laws,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Civil laws are retroactively applied all the time.
The constitutional ex post facto clause only applies to penal laws,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611064</id>
	<title>So treat it as if it was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262263920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Civil disobedience, in a sense.  Everyone treat things as if they were in the PD, even companies.</p><p>When enough people go along with the idea, it'll happen for real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Civil disobedience , in a sense .
Everyone treat things as if they were in the PD , even companies.When enough people go along with the idea , it 'll happen for real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Civil disobedience, in a sense.
Everyone treat things as if they were in the PD, even companies.When enough people go along with the idea, it'll happen for real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611330</id>
	<title>Steamboat Willie Event Horizon</title>
	<author>cybergremlin</author>
	<datestamp>1262266320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain.  Disney will always get a retroactive extension to copyright that includes it through congress before that happens.  You can argue that this is bad/unfair/unconstitutional/great/etc but that is the practical reality.  Any practical proposal for a reform of the copyright system has to take this into account.</p><p>Under the current system this means that anything from that era forward also stays out of the public domain forever, including &ldquo;orphan works&rdquo;.  The loss of these &ldquo;orphan works&rdquo; that are long out of print and with no clear owner is the one thing that (almost) everyone can agree is a Bad Thing.  So, any reform that has any chance of passing must improve the situation with those items while preserving the interests of politically powerful copyright holders (Disney, Sony, etc).  I can see some options that could do it, though in any real world implementations would reveal some flaws.</p><p>Opt-in renewal is the one we hear tossed around the most.  This sets forgotten material into the public domain but preserves the copyright on anything the owner finds worthy of a nominal renewal fee.  It has the added bonus of registering who you can license the publishing rights from.</p><p>Letting works fall into the public domain after being out of print for X years could also accomplish the above goals.  It would also have the added bonus of encouraging publishers to keep a work available/in-print to preserve their rights.</p><p>Lastly we could instead create a special extension for trademarks, franchises, and corporate identifiers.  Things strongly associated with an ongoing business could be protected for a longer period.  DC would keep Superman and Disney would keep Mickey, but an out of print science article would not get the new extension and would eventually enter the public domain.</p><p>None of these proposals would satisfy copyleft purists or &ldquo;hands off my copyright!&rdquo; paranoids but they could be a reasonable starting point for compromise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain .
Disney will always get a retroactive extension to copyright that includes it through congress before that happens .
You can argue that this is bad/unfair/unconstitutional/great/etc but that is the practical reality .
Any practical proposal for a reform of the copyright system has to take this into account.Under the current system this means that anything from that era forward also stays out of the public domain forever , including    orphan works    .
The loss of these    orphan works    that are long out of print and with no clear owner is the one thing that ( almost ) everyone can agree is a Bad Thing .
So , any reform that has any chance of passing must improve the situation with those items while preserving the interests of politically powerful copyright holders ( Disney , Sony , etc ) .
I can see some options that could do it , though in any real world implementations would reveal some flaws.Opt-in renewal is the one we hear tossed around the most .
This sets forgotten material into the public domain but preserves the copyright on anything the owner finds worthy of a nominal renewal fee .
It has the added bonus of registering who you can license the publishing rights from.Letting works fall into the public domain after being out of print for X years could also accomplish the above goals .
It would also have the added bonus of encouraging publishers to keep a work available/in-print to preserve their rights.Lastly we could instead create a special extension for trademarks , franchises , and corporate identifiers .
Things strongly associated with an ongoing business could be protected for a longer period .
DC would keep Superman and Disney would keep Mickey , but an out of print science article would not get the new extension and would eventually enter the public domain.None of these proposals would satisfy copyleft purists or    hands off my copyright !    paranoids but they could be a reasonable starting point for compromise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain.
Disney will always get a retroactive extension to copyright that includes it through congress before that happens.
You can argue that this is bad/unfair/unconstitutional/great/etc but that is the practical reality.
Any practical proposal for a reform of the copyright system has to take this into account.Under the current system this means that anything from that era forward also stays out of the public domain forever, including “orphan works”.
The loss of these “orphan works” that are long out of print and with no clear owner is the one thing that (almost) everyone can agree is a Bad Thing.
So, any reform that has any chance of passing must improve the situation with those items while preserving the interests of politically powerful copyright holders (Disney, Sony, etc).
I can see some options that could do it, though in any real world implementations would reveal some flaws.Opt-in renewal is the one we hear tossed around the most.
This sets forgotten material into the public domain but preserves the copyright on anything the owner finds worthy of a nominal renewal fee.
It has the added bonus of registering who you can license the publishing rights from.Letting works fall into the public domain after being out of print for X years could also accomplish the above goals.
It would also have the added bonus of encouraging publishers to keep a work available/in-print to preserve their rights.Lastly we could instead create a special extension for trademarks, franchises, and corporate identifiers.
Things strongly associated with an ongoing business could be protected for a longer period.
DC would keep Superman and Disney would keep Mickey, but an out of print science article would not get the new extension and would eventually enter the public domain.None of these proposals would satisfy copyleft purists or “hands off my copyright!” paranoids but they could be a reasonable starting point for compromise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611226</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262265420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one cares about the U.S. Constitution any more... it fell out of copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one cares about the U.S. Constitution any more... it fell out of copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one cares about the U.S. Constitution any more... it fell out of copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724</id>
	<title>Offensive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262260620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a 49 yo grandmother, feminist, and C programmer of 20 years, I am offended that no feminist liturature is mentioned. It shows the bias of the IT community.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a 49 yo grandmother , feminist , and C programmer of 20 years , I am offended that no feminist liturature is mentioned .
It shows the bias of the IT community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a 49 yo grandmother, feminist, and C programmer of 20 years, I am offended that no feminist liturature is mentioned.
It shows the bias of the IT community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612434</id>
	<title>15 years</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1262282040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The optimal time is <a href="http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal\_copyright.pdf" title="rufuspollock.org" rel="nofollow">15 years</a> [rufuspollock.org], to 99\% certainty less than 38 years [pdf] according to <a href="http://www.rufuspollock.org/" title="rufuspollock.org" rel="nofollow">Rufus Pollock</a> [rufuspollock.org], an economist at Cambridge specializing in intellectual property. An updated annoying Web slideshow from his most recent talk on the subject is <a href="http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal\_copyright\_term\_talk\_atrip\_2009.html" title="rufuspollock.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [rufuspollock.org] and the narrative is <a href="http://www.rufuspollock.org/2009/09/22/talk-at-atrip-conference-how-long-should-copyright-last/" title="rufuspollock.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [rufuspollock.org].
</p><p>Even assuming we made it 28 years from publication at the first go to stay straight with the WTO, every bit of content produced before 1/1/1982 would be in the public domain tomorrow including the movies "Chariots of Fire" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark", the books "Cujo" and "Red Dragon", the songs "9 to 5" and "Physical".  The value of these works as cultural artifacts are worth far more now than their residual commercial value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The optimal time is 15 years [ rufuspollock.org ] , to 99 \ % certainty less than 38 years [ pdf ] according to Rufus Pollock [ rufuspollock.org ] , an economist at Cambridge specializing in intellectual property .
An updated annoying Web slideshow from his most recent talk on the subject is here [ rufuspollock.org ] and the narrative is here [ rufuspollock.org ] .
Even assuming we made it 28 years from publication at the first go to stay straight with the WTO , every bit of content produced before 1/1/1982 would be in the public domain tomorrow including the movies " Chariots of Fire " and " Raiders of the Lost Ark " , the books " Cujo " and " Red Dragon " , the songs " 9 to 5 " and " Physical " .
The value of these works as cultural artifacts are worth far more now than their residual commercial value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The optimal time is 15 years [rufuspollock.org], to 99\% certainty less than 38 years [pdf] according to Rufus Pollock [rufuspollock.org], an economist at Cambridge specializing in intellectual property.
An updated annoying Web slideshow from his most recent talk on the subject is here [rufuspollock.org] and the narrative is here [rufuspollock.org].
Even assuming we made it 28 years from publication at the first go to stay straight with the WTO, every bit of content produced before 1/1/1982 would be in the public domain tomorrow including the movies "Chariots of Fire" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark", the books "Cujo" and "Red Dragon", the songs "9 to 5" and "Physical".
The value of these works as cultural artifacts are worth far more now than their residual commercial value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611830</id>
	<title>More required reading</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1262272140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://baens-universe.com/articles/McCauley\_copyright" title="baens-universe.com" rel="nofollow">Thomas Macaulay, 1842</a> [baens-universe.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Macaulay , 1842 [ baens-universe.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Thomas Macaulay, 1842 [baens-universe.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613818</id>
	<title>Re:A book my great-great-grandmother wrote</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1230821880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would love to make a PDF copy and put it up on my genealogy site as a free download, however from my reading of copyright laws it appears it is still under copyright.</p></div><p>Why not just do it anyway? Worst that can happen is you get asked to take it down. You're not going to damage anyone's business by distributing something that wouldn't sell anyway so there would be nothing for the copyright holder (whoever that is) to gain from suing.</p><p>Disclaimer: not a lawyer, pirate party member, completely biased</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to make a PDF copy and put it up on my genealogy site as a free download , however from my reading of copyright laws it appears it is still under copyright.Why not just do it anyway ?
Worst that can happen is you get asked to take it down .
You 're not going to damage anyone 's business by distributing something that would n't sell anyway so there would be nothing for the copyright holder ( whoever that is ) to gain from suing.Disclaimer : not a lawyer , pirate party member , completely biased</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to make a PDF copy and put it up on my genealogy site as a free download, however from my reading of copyright laws it appears it is still under copyright.Why not just do it anyway?
Worst that can happen is you get asked to take it down.
You're not going to damage anyone's business by distributing something that wouldn't sell anyway so there would be nothing for the copyright holder (whoever that is) to gain from suing.Disclaimer: not a lawyer, pirate party member, completely biased
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611808</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262271900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it bizarrely ironic that that story is licensed under a CC "No derivative works" license.</p><p>Enjoyable read nonetheless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it bizarrely ironic that that story is licensed under a CC " No derivative works " license.Enjoyable read nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it bizarrely ironic that that story is licensed under a CC "No derivative works" license.Enjoyable read nonetheless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611530</id>
	<title>wikipedia / creative commons</title>
	<author>sugarmotor</author>
	<datestamp>1262268300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to argue with people on the wikipedia help desk: it is hard to make out when the copyright for a particular wikipedia article will expire, or has expired, since one has hardly any handle on who contributed.</p><p>It's kind of the other end of the GPL, and Creative Commons, etc. licenses.</p><p>In general I think it would be better to have markers  (C) Copright-Expires-Date, instead of (C) Creation-Date. The problem being, of course, that the expiration date is tied to when the creator dies.</p><p>Stephan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to argue with people on the wikipedia help desk : it is hard to make out when the copyright for a particular wikipedia article will expire , or has expired , since one has hardly any handle on who contributed.It 's kind of the other end of the GPL , and Creative Commons , etc .
licenses.In general I think it would be better to have markers ( C ) Copright-Expires-Date , instead of ( C ) Creation-Date .
The problem being , of course , that the expiration date is tied to when the creator dies.Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to argue with people on the wikipedia help desk: it is hard to make out when the copyright for a particular wikipedia article will expire, or has expired, since one has hardly any handle on who contributed.It's kind of the other end of the GPL, and Creative Commons, etc.
licenses.In general I think it would be better to have markers  (C) Copright-Expires-Date, instead of (C) Creation-Date.
The problem being, of course, that the expiration date is tied to when the creator dies.Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610942</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262262660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it's not like he voted himself in the office, I believe he had help, millions of voters, now you say that they were deceived misinformed, no they were just ignorant, and now all will pay for it, democracy at it's finest. Thousands of years of known history and this is how we live<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it 's not like he voted himself in the office , I believe he had help , millions of voters , now you say that they were deceived misinformed , no they were just ignorant , and now all will pay for it , democracy at it 's finest .
Thousands of years of known history and this is how we live .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it's not like he voted himself in the office, I believe he had help, millions of voters, now you say that they were deceived misinformed, no they were just ignorant, and now all will pay for it, democracy at it's finest.
Thousands of years of known history and this is how we live ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611852</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1262272440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you re-read that you'll find that the actual argument contained within supports a copyright scheme whereby old works crumble to dust and disappear due to not being refreshed by reprint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you re-read that you 'll find that the actual argument contained within supports a copyright scheme whereby old works crumble to dust and disappear due to not being refreshed by reprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you re-read that you'll find that the actual argument contained within supports a copyright scheme whereby old works crumble to dust and disappear due to not being refreshed by reprint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</id>
	<title>Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262261280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These copyright "extensions" are nothing more than another government bailout.</p><p>Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.  There wasn't even the possibility that they'd put the good of the citizens above the good of corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These copyright " extensions " are nothing more than another government bailout.Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office , no matter their party affiliation .
There was n't even the possibility that they 'd put the good of the citizens above the good of corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These copyright "extensions" are nothing more than another government bailout.Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.
There wasn't even the possibility that they'd put the good of the citizens above the good of corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30614182</id>
	<title>Time to break out the Heinlein quote</title>
	<author>zuki</author>
	<datestamp>1230827040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like Robert Heinlein wrote this, and it does feel fairly applicable to this situation:

<br> <br>
<i> <b>"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."</b> </i> <br> <br>

Hope no one else posted this.... apologies if this is a duplicate post.
<br> <br>Obviously, what he failed to foresee is that corporations could in fact have the government change common law, by employing the services of enough lobbyists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like Robert Heinlein wrote this , and it does feel fairly applicable to this situation : " 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 .
" Hope no one else posted this.... apologies if this is a duplicate post .
Obviously , what he failed to foresee is that corporations could in fact have the government change common law , by employing the services of enough lobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like Robert Heinlein wrote this, and it does feel fairly applicable to this situation:

 
 "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.
"   

Hope no one else posted this.... apologies if this is a duplicate post.
Obviously, what he failed to foresee is that corporations could in fact have the government change common law, by employing the services of enough lobbyists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611278</id>
	<title>Re:Berne Convention</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1262265900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the Berne Convention say that the penalty for violating a non-registered copyright has to be the same as violating a registered one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the Berne Convention say that the penalty for violating a non-registered copyright has to be the same as violating a registered one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the Berne Convention say that the penalty for violating a non-registered copyright has to be the same as violating a registered one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611006</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1262263260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though I agree with you on principle the reality is there isn't a chance in hell that would come to pass anytime soon. However a compromise might be reached by giving the mafia the "forever minus a day" that they want contingent on yearly renewal fees and the removal of derivative rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though I agree with you on principle the reality is there is n't a chance in hell that would come to pass anytime soon .
However a compromise might be reached by giving the mafia the " forever minus a day " that they want contingent on yearly renewal fees and the removal of derivative rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though I agree with you on principle the reality is there isn't a chance in hell that would come to pass anytime soon.
However a compromise might be reached by giving the mafia the "forever minus a day" that they want contingent on yearly renewal fees and the removal of derivative rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611632</id>
	<title>Re:Cool</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1262269560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm going to treat them as if they have entered the public domain.</p></div><p>I can't see why one wouldn't.  Unless you want to be known as a sucker.  Time for a major reboot of the ruling class.  Legally, of course, like how the Articles of Confederation were disposed of in the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to treat them as if they have entered the public domain.I ca n't see why one would n't .
Unless you want to be known as a sucker .
Time for a major reboot of the ruling class .
Legally , of course , like how the Articles of Confederation were disposed of in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to treat them as if they have entered the public domain.I can't see why one wouldn't.
Unless you want to be known as a sucker.
Time for a major reboot of the ruling class.
Legally, of course, like how the Articles of Confederation were disposed of in the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611268</id>
	<title>A free iPhone game</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1262265840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been thinking about a moral thought game.  What if someone made a free iPhone game that was rather good, and set it out for free?  Technically, you'll be taking the jobs of a lot of people--often independent developers--who won't get a sale.  As far as I know, nobody has done this--ever, in the entire world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking about a moral thought game .
What if someone made a free iPhone game that was rather good , and set it out for free ?
Technically , you 'll be taking the jobs of a lot of people--often independent developers--who wo n't get a sale .
As far as I know , nobody has done this--ever , in the entire world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been thinking about a moral thought game.
What if someone made a free iPhone game that was rather good, and set it out for free?
Technically, you'll be taking the jobs of a lot of people--often independent developers--who won't get a sale.
As far as I know, nobody has done this--ever, in the entire world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30624774</id>
	<title>Re:Berne Convention</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1230926340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just reduce the penalties for copyright violation to 1 cent in total from 12 years onwards. Job done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just reduce the penalties for copyright violation to 1 cent in total from 12 years onwards .
Job done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just reduce the penalties for copyright violation to 1 cent in total from 12 years onwards.
Job done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613666</id>
	<title>Re:Congress is Working Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230819840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, there will be a time, soon, when cruise missiles will be cheaper than lawsuits.</p><p>Guess what happen next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , there will be a time , soon , when cruise missiles will be cheaper than lawsuits.Guess what happen next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, there will be a time, soon, when cruise missiles will be cheaper than lawsuits.Guess what happen next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611034</id>
	<title>Re:Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>aynoknman</author>
	<datestamp>1262263740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Free stuff isn't interesting to people with large distribution channels.  Stuff you can charge for, even just 1\% over the cost of production, is much more interesting.  Stuff you can charge 200\% over the cost of production is even more interesting.  As long as most of the world doesn't have access to high-speed Internet connections or have the knowledge to make use of them distribution is going to be where the big bucks are.</p></div><p>
The most important lesson here is that small distribution channels are becoming more important. As is voluntary production. Without the unjust copyright monopoly that steals from the public, these items would be available.</p><p>
High-speed internet is not universally available, but is still following a law similar to Moore's law. A personal anecdote:
<br>
I lived in a rural African village in 1991 when my father died in Canada. I had to travel four hours to reach a telephone. Today that village has cell phone coverage and not-very-high-speed internet. Cell phones are revolutionizing the third world and will soon be their libraries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free stuff is n't interesting to people with large distribution channels .
Stuff you can charge for , even just 1 \ % over the cost of production , is much more interesting .
Stuff you can charge 200 \ % over the cost of production is even more interesting .
As long as most of the world does n't have access to high-speed Internet connections or have the knowledge to make use of them distribution is going to be where the big bucks are .
The most important lesson here is that small distribution channels are becoming more important .
As is voluntary production .
Without the unjust copyright monopoly that steals from the public , these items would be available .
High-speed internet is not universally available , but is still following a law similar to Moore 's law .
A personal anecdote : I lived in a rural African village in 1991 when my father died in Canada .
I had to travel four hours to reach a telephone .
Today that village has cell phone coverage and not-very-high-speed internet .
Cell phones are revolutionizing the third world and will soon be their libraries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free stuff isn't interesting to people with large distribution channels.
Stuff you can charge for, even just 1\% over the cost of production, is much more interesting.
Stuff you can charge 200\% over the cost of production is even more interesting.
As long as most of the world doesn't have access to high-speed Internet connections or have the knowledge to make use of them distribution is going to be where the big bucks are.
The most important lesson here is that small distribution channels are becoming more important.
As is voluntary production.
Without the unjust copyright monopoly that steals from the public, these items would be available.
High-speed internet is not universally available, but is still following a law similar to Moore's law.
A personal anecdote:

I lived in a rural African village in 1991 when my father died in Canada.
I had to travel four hours to reach a telephone.
Today that village has cell phone coverage and not-very-high-speed internet.
Cell phones are revolutionizing the third world and will soon be their libraries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613484</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230816360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"No bill of attainder or <b>ex post facto</b> law shall be passed."</p></div><p>Sorry, but your interpretation is wrong. Not being allowed to create an ex post facto law means that they can punnish you based on a law that did not exist at the time you broke the law. For example, lets say that there were no copyright laws. Then, congress in its infinite wisdom decides to create a copyright law. They could not say that everyone who has broken this new law for the past 10 years can be punnished.</p><p>This is an entirely different circumstance. They are making it so they will enforce copyright longer. They are not punnishing you for something you did before the law was passed.</p><p>P.S. I hate the copyright system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed .
" Sorry , but your interpretation is wrong .
Not being allowed to create an ex post facto law means that they can punnish you based on a law that did not exist at the time you broke the law .
For example , lets say that there were no copyright laws .
Then , congress in its infinite wisdom decides to create a copyright law .
They could not say that everyone who has broken this new law for the past 10 years can be punnished.This is an entirely different circumstance .
They are making it so they will enforce copyright longer .
They are not punnishing you for something you did before the law was passed.P.S .
I hate the copyright system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
"Sorry, but your interpretation is wrong.
Not being allowed to create an ex post facto law means that they can punnish you based on a law that did not exist at the time you broke the law.
For example, lets say that there were no copyright laws.
Then, congress in its infinite wisdom decides to create a copyright law.
They could not say that everyone who has broken this new law for the past 10 years can be punnished.This is an entirely different circumstance.
They are making it so they will enforce copyright longer.
They are not punnishing you for something you did before the law was passed.P.S.
I hate the copyright system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610868</id>
	<title>What's entering Rob Malda's ass tonight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262262000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1 chrome buttplug, 1 matchbox car (wrapped in condom), 2 gerbils, 3 fingers, 1/2 bottle astroglide, 3 black cocks, 1 russian cock, 1 mexican cock, 2 white cocks, 1 vibrator, 2 fat turds, and cowboy neal's arm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 chrome buttplug , 1 matchbox car ( wrapped in condom ) , 2 gerbils , 3 fingers , 1/2 bottle astroglide , 3 black cocks , 1 russian cock , 1 mexican cock , 2 white cocks , 1 vibrator , 2 fat turds , and cowboy neal 's arm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 chrome buttplug, 1 matchbox car (wrapped in condom), 2 gerbils, 3 fingers, 1/2 bottle astroglide, 3 black cocks, 1 russian cock, 1 mexican cock, 2 white cocks, 1 vibrator, 2 fat turds, and cowboy neal's arm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30635044</id>
	<title>Re:Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1230983280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, I'm thinking of writing a speculative fiction story where big publishing houses and media firms convince Congress to allow them to buy up public domain works, and then go after anyone who has an illegitimate copy of Henry V. What scares me is maybe it'll come true.</p></div><p>Actually that wouldn't surprise me.  The way copyrights are working today, they don't necessarily protect or benefit the original creators anyway.  If you listen carefully to the rhetoric behind copyright extensions and strict copyright enforcement, you'll find that a lot of the support is based on a vague economic theory that's very popular these days, based loosely on capitalism.  The application of theory in this case goes something like this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Having anything be "public" in a society is wasteful.  Whether something is valuable can only be measured by how much profit it generates for private enterprise, and things which generate no profit are worthless.  If you make something free or public, then it will necessarily be abused.  All public things suffer from "the tragedy of the commons" unless they're so completely worthless that no one bothers to use them anyway.
</p><p>What's more, rich and successful people are wealthy because they are better than everyone else.  The fact that they're rich is direct evidence that they are providing a good value that people are willing to pay for.  Hence, the fact that these media companies are large and wealthy indicates that they should be rewarded and their business should be increased.  Therefore giving them better copyright protection is only reasonable.
</p><p>And finally, whenever a company profits, it's good for the economy.  Those profits are all generated by the company, and none of that money would exist if those companies didn't create that profit.  All that profit is ultimately distributed to us all through the free market, and so we all benefit from this profit generation.  Therefore, the government should seek to secure as much profit as possible for large successful companies.  If you don't create strong copyright protections, these companies will lose billions of dollars, which in turn means that our economy will lose those billions of dollars.  Since no one will be able to directly profit from those works, there will be no economic benefit.</p></div><p>If that's how you think it works, then it would only make sense to sell off copyrights to all public domain works.  According to the logic I just described (flawed as it is), every Shakespeare play that has no copyright is a huge economic waste.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I 'm thinking of writing a speculative fiction story where big publishing houses and media firms convince Congress to allow them to buy up public domain works , and then go after anyone who has an illegitimate copy of Henry V. What scares me is maybe it 'll come true.Actually that would n't surprise me .
The way copyrights are working today , they do n't necessarily protect or benefit the original creators anyway .
If you listen carefully to the rhetoric behind copyright extensions and strict copyright enforcement , you 'll find that a lot of the support is based on a vague economic theory that 's very popular these days , based loosely on capitalism .
The application of theory in this case goes something like this : Having anything be " public " in a society is wasteful .
Whether something is valuable can only be measured by how much profit it generates for private enterprise , and things which generate no profit are worthless .
If you make something free or public , then it will necessarily be abused .
All public things suffer from " the tragedy of the commons " unless they 're so completely worthless that no one bothers to use them anyway .
What 's more , rich and successful people are wealthy because they are better than everyone else .
The fact that they 're rich is direct evidence that they are providing a good value that people are willing to pay for .
Hence , the fact that these media companies are large and wealthy indicates that they should be rewarded and their business should be increased .
Therefore giving them better copyright protection is only reasonable .
And finally , whenever a company profits , it 's good for the economy .
Those profits are all generated by the company , and none of that money would exist if those companies did n't create that profit .
All that profit is ultimately distributed to us all through the free market , and so we all benefit from this profit generation .
Therefore , the government should seek to secure as much profit as possible for large successful companies .
If you do n't create strong copyright protections , these companies will lose billions of dollars , which in turn means that our economy will lose those billions of dollars .
Since no one will be able to directly profit from those works , there will be no economic benefit.If that 's how you think it works , then it would only make sense to sell off copyrights to all public domain works .
According to the logic I just described ( flawed as it is ) , every Shakespeare play that has no copyright is a huge economic waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I'm thinking of writing a speculative fiction story where big publishing houses and media firms convince Congress to allow them to buy up public domain works, and then go after anyone who has an illegitimate copy of Henry V. What scares me is maybe it'll come true.Actually that wouldn't surprise me.
The way copyrights are working today, they don't necessarily protect or benefit the original creators anyway.
If you listen carefully to the rhetoric behind copyright extensions and strict copyright enforcement, you'll find that a lot of the support is based on a vague economic theory that's very popular these days, based loosely on capitalism.
The application of theory in this case goes something like this:Having anything be "public" in a society is wasteful.
Whether something is valuable can only be measured by how much profit it generates for private enterprise, and things which generate no profit are worthless.
If you make something free or public, then it will necessarily be abused.
All public things suffer from "the tragedy of the commons" unless they're so completely worthless that no one bothers to use them anyway.
What's more, rich and successful people are wealthy because they are better than everyone else.
The fact that they're rich is direct evidence that they are providing a good value that people are willing to pay for.
Hence, the fact that these media companies are large and wealthy indicates that they should be rewarded and their business should be increased.
Therefore giving them better copyright protection is only reasonable.
And finally, whenever a company profits, it's good for the economy.
Those profits are all generated by the company, and none of that money would exist if those companies didn't create that profit.
All that profit is ultimately distributed to us all through the free market, and so we all benefit from this profit generation.
Therefore, the government should seek to secure as much profit as possible for large successful companies.
If you don't create strong copyright protections, these companies will lose billions of dollars, which in turn means that our economy will lose those billions of dollars.
Since no one will be able to directly profit from those works, there will be no economic benefit.If that's how you think it works, then it would only make sense to sell off copyrights to all public domain works.
According to the logic I just described (flawed as it is), every Shakespeare play that has no copyright is a huge economic waste.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611900</id>
	<title>All the old dos and windows 3.1 games it's about t</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262273460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the old dos and windows 3.1 games it's about time for a lot of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the old dos and windows 3.1 games it 's about time for a lot of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the old dos and windows 3.1 games it's about time for a lot of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613816</id>
	<title>Why Not Ask Them?</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1230821760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some questions for thought with regards to the issues of rights and ownership. The readership here is big on rights. Where's consideration for these peoples' rights? Pretending the issue is between the public (ie. domain) and governmental control is overly simplistic. The rights of the owners get devalued in such discussions and the owners are relegated to the ping pong ball treatment. Try to read through and think on them before responding. This is not intended as flamebait, but as an opening of awareness to include a class of rights holders not as often considered here as others. So please do read through all the way to the bottom, there are important points there too.</p><p>So, reconsider this as "Whose Property Would You Have Taken Away Tomorrow"?</p><p>Why not contact some of the authors/owners for things that would have gone PD and ask them to sign their rights over to PD? Seems to me to be more fair to have the owners sign them over at a time of their choosing than forcing them to relinquish according to a calendar.</p><p>Why not require authors to include a 'convert to PD' statement in their new application for copyright, which gives them up to a mandated maximum, but for which they can specify a lesser amount?</p><p>For that matter, why not have every application for copyright have a question on it, asking the applicant for their opinion on future changes to the law, asking what time span would be fair to use as the maximum before requiring conversion to PD? Non-binding certainly, but at least it takes the opinions of those most affected into account.</p><p>While in force copyright acts much like other rights of ownership. How many other laws covering protection of owners' rights require the owner to give their property away after a certain period? No matter how rightly this is required, as has always been the intention of copyright laws, it still is a case of mandated relinquishing of ownership.</p><p>Turn it around and look at it. Let's say you buy a brand new house. In the deed is a statement that in let's say 50 years, it becomes property of the state and will be given over to the homeless, under control of the same agency that protects your ownership in the mean time. You can still live there, but so can anyone else. Oh, and selling the house doesn't change that date. Consider what that's going to do to your property value over time. If that was the law and you wanted a house, of course you'd have to go along. But as time went on the implications would start to matter more. Now imaging that the government comes along and says they're going to change all existing contracts saying 50 years to 75 years. Will you, as owner, have a problem with that? Theoretically the law also protected the homeless by providing them a place to live. They have rights too, and it's beneficial for society to have its members caring for each other rather than have one class left to go without since that causes all sorts of other problems like crime. Will you tell the government that you'd just as soon keep your 50 year limit and allow your ownership to expire? And you people in the market for a house that can't afford a new one but are willing to fix up and old one to maker it worth more, will you buy a used house? How old?</p><p>That's simply property. Copyright covers things that usually produce income for the owner, sometimes for an extended period. So let's change the above from owning a home to owning a business (owning, selling and speculation of copyrights are part of the business of authorship and publishing, after all). Will you start a business if you know that after 50 years it will be turned over to public trust and all income derived diverted to public funds? What will you do as the time approaches? Will you stick to your original contract or will you accept the government's extension?</p><p>Society needs responsible and stable owners of both homes and businesses to maintain what they own for the duration of their ownership. The alternative is their neglect as the value to them draws down. The result would be that t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some questions for thought with regards to the issues of rights and ownership .
The readership here is big on rights .
Where 's consideration for these peoples ' rights ?
Pretending the issue is between the public ( ie .
domain ) and governmental control is overly simplistic .
The rights of the owners get devalued in such discussions and the owners are relegated to the ping pong ball treatment .
Try to read through and think on them before responding .
This is not intended as flamebait , but as an opening of awareness to include a class of rights holders not as often considered here as others .
So please do read through all the way to the bottom , there are important points there too.So , reconsider this as " Whose Property Would You Have Taken Away Tomorrow " ? Why not contact some of the authors/owners for things that would have gone PD and ask them to sign their rights over to PD ?
Seems to me to be more fair to have the owners sign them over at a time of their choosing than forcing them to relinquish according to a calendar.Why not require authors to include a 'convert to PD ' statement in their new application for copyright , which gives them up to a mandated maximum , but for which they can specify a lesser amount ? For that matter , why not have every application for copyright have a question on it , asking the applicant for their opinion on future changes to the law , asking what time span would be fair to use as the maximum before requiring conversion to PD ?
Non-binding certainly , but at least it takes the opinions of those most affected into account.While in force copyright acts much like other rights of ownership .
How many other laws covering protection of owners ' rights require the owner to give their property away after a certain period ?
No matter how rightly this is required , as has always been the intention of copyright laws , it still is a case of mandated relinquishing of ownership.Turn it around and look at it .
Let 's say you buy a brand new house .
In the deed is a statement that in let 's say 50 years , it becomes property of the state and will be given over to the homeless , under control of the same agency that protects your ownership in the mean time .
You can still live there , but so can anyone else .
Oh , and selling the house does n't change that date .
Consider what that 's going to do to your property value over time .
If that was the law and you wanted a house , of course you 'd have to go along .
But as time went on the implications would start to matter more .
Now imaging that the government comes along and says they 're going to change all existing contracts saying 50 years to 75 years .
Will you , as owner , have a problem with that ?
Theoretically the law also protected the homeless by providing them a place to live .
They have rights too , and it 's beneficial for society to have its members caring for each other rather than have one class left to go without since that causes all sorts of other problems like crime .
Will you tell the government that you 'd just as soon keep your 50 year limit and allow your ownership to expire ?
And you people in the market for a house that ca n't afford a new one but are willing to fix up and old one to maker it worth more , will you buy a used house ?
How old ? That 's simply property .
Copyright covers things that usually produce income for the owner , sometimes for an extended period .
So let 's change the above from owning a home to owning a business ( owning , selling and speculation of copyrights are part of the business of authorship and publishing , after all ) .
Will you start a business if you know that after 50 years it will be turned over to public trust and all income derived diverted to public funds ?
What will you do as the time approaches ?
Will you stick to your original contract or will you accept the government 's extension ? Society needs responsible and stable owners of both homes and businesses to maintain what they own for the duration of their ownership .
The alternative is their neglect as the value to them draws down .
The result would be that t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some questions for thought with regards to the issues of rights and ownership.
The readership here is big on rights.
Where's consideration for these peoples' rights?
Pretending the issue is between the public (ie.
domain) and governmental control is overly simplistic.
The rights of the owners get devalued in such discussions and the owners are relegated to the ping pong ball treatment.
Try to read through and think on them before responding.
This is not intended as flamebait, but as an opening of awareness to include a class of rights holders not as often considered here as others.
So please do read through all the way to the bottom, there are important points there too.So, reconsider this as "Whose Property Would You Have Taken Away Tomorrow"?Why not contact some of the authors/owners for things that would have gone PD and ask them to sign their rights over to PD?
Seems to me to be more fair to have the owners sign them over at a time of their choosing than forcing them to relinquish according to a calendar.Why not require authors to include a 'convert to PD' statement in their new application for copyright, which gives them up to a mandated maximum, but for which they can specify a lesser amount?For that matter, why not have every application for copyright have a question on it, asking the applicant for their opinion on future changes to the law, asking what time span would be fair to use as the maximum before requiring conversion to PD?
Non-binding certainly, but at least it takes the opinions of those most affected into account.While in force copyright acts much like other rights of ownership.
How many other laws covering protection of owners' rights require the owner to give their property away after a certain period?
No matter how rightly this is required, as has always been the intention of copyright laws, it still is a case of mandated relinquishing of ownership.Turn it around and look at it.
Let's say you buy a brand new house.
In the deed is a statement that in let's say 50 years, it becomes property of the state and will be given over to the homeless, under control of the same agency that protects your ownership in the mean time.
You can still live there, but so can anyone else.
Oh, and selling the house doesn't change that date.
Consider what that's going to do to your property value over time.
If that was the law and you wanted a house, of course you'd have to go along.
But as time went on the implications would start to matter more.
Now imaging that the government comes along and says they're going to change all existing contracts saying 50 years to 75 years.
Will you, as owner, have a problem with that?
Theoretically the law also protected the homeless by providing them a place to live.
They have rights too, and it's beneficial for society to have its members caring for each other rather than have one class left to go without since that causes all sorts of other problems like crime.
Will you tell the government that you'd just as soon keep your 50 year limit and allow your ownership to expire?
And you people in the market for a house that can't afford a new one but are willing to fix up and old one to maker it worth more, will you buy a used house?
How old?That's simply property.
Copyright covers things that usually produce income for the owner, sometimes for an extended period.
So let's change the above from owning a home to owning a business (owning, selling and speculation of copyrights are part of the business of authorship and publishing, after all).
Will you start a business if you know that after 50 years it will be turned over to public trust and all income derived diverted to public funds?
What will you do as the time approaches?
Will you stick to your original contract or will you accept the government's extension?Society needs responsible and stable owners of both homes and businesses to maintain what they own for the duration of their ownership.
The alternative is their neglect as the value to them draws down.
The result would be that t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611488</id>
	<title>Re:Congress is Working Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262268000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And in a bit, when the Supremes make it possible for corporations to invest in electioneering (which they're expected to do one of these days now), you can forget about even the marginal worth of votes any more.    Can anyone really suggest a good reason why one of the big players (Microsoft, ATT, GE) will not just go out and buy elections for the candidates they like - sure people will still vote, but if all the publicity is for one candidate and the other is essentially invisible, guess who people will vote for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And in a bit , when the Supremes make it possible for corporations to invest in electioneering ( which they 're expected to do one of these days now ) , you can forget about even the marginal worth of votes any more .
Can anyone really suggest a good reason why one of the big players ( Microsoft , ATT , GE ) will not just go out and buy elections for the candidates they like - sure people will still vote , but if all the publicity is for one candidate and the other is essentially invisible , guess who people will vote for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in a bit, when the Supremes make it possible for corporations to invest in electioneering (which they're expected to do one of these days now), you can forget about even the marginal worth of votes any more.
Can anyone really suggest a good reason why one of the big players (Microsoft, ATT, GE) will not just go out and buy elections for the candidates they like - sure people will still vote, but if all the publicity is for one candidate and the other is essentially invisible, guess who people will vote for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611914</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262273640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignore the copyright extension and use the material as if it were publi domain, wait for the lawsuit and hope the courts remember that there is a Constitution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignore the copyright extension and use the material as if it were publi domain , wait for the lawsuit and hope the courts remember that there is a Constitution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignore the copyright extension and use the material as if it were publi domain, wait for the lawsuit and hope the courts remember that there is a Constitution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611178</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1262265000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Late to the thread, anyway here is the obligatory read concerning copyrights (short read, 1.5 pages): <a href="http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html" title="spiderrobinson.com">Melancholy Elephants</a> [spiderrobinson.com] by Spider Robinson.  Basically, to protect all the artists some must be disadvantaged.  The some fight tooth and nail to prevent this.  Being disadvantaged is having your work enter the public domain.  The "all" who are protected are the artists of today, tomorrow, and forever who get to use <i>ideas</i> to resurrect, reinvent, or just plain re-do.  Give <b>all</b> artists these protections and <i>all of us</i> in the wider society benefit, thrive, and grow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Late to the thread , anyway here is the obligatory read concerning copyrights ( short read , 1.5 pages ) : Melancholy Elephants [ spiderrobinson.com ] by Spider Robinson .
Basically , to protect all the artists some must be disadvantaged .
The some fight tooth and nail to prevent this .
Being disadvantaged is having your work enter the public domain .
The " all " who are protected are the artists of today , tomorrow , and forever who get to use ideas to resurrect , reinvent , or just plain re-do .
Give all artists these protections and all of us in the wider society benefit , thrive , and grow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Late to the thread, anyway here is the obligatory read concerning copyrights (short read, 1.5 pages): Melancholy Elephants [spiderrobinson.com] by Spider Robinson.
Basically, to protect all the artists some must be disadvantaged.
The some fight tooth and nail to prevent this.
Being disadvantaged is having your work enter the public domain.
The "all" who are protected are the artists of today, tomorrow, and forever who get to use ideas to resurrect, reinvent, or just plain re-do.
Give all artists these protections and all of us in the wider society benefit, thrive, and grow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612484</id>
	<title>Ex Post Facto Law</title>
	<author>Diesel Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1262282760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unconstitutional...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unconstitutional.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unconstitutional...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611418</id>
	<title>Re:A book my great-great-grandmother wrote</title>
	<author>gweeks</author>
	<datestamp>1262267340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly when and where was it published. If it was published in the US prior to 1964 it still required a renewal. If it wasn't renewed it's in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly when and where was it published .
If it was published in the US prior to 1964 it still required a renewal .
If it was n't renewed it 's in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly when and where was it published.
If it was published in the US prior to 1964 it still required a renewal.
If it wasn't renewed it's in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108</id>
	<title>Boyle's logic failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262264400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>James Boyle, "Bradbury's firemen at least set fire to their own culture out of deep ideological commitment, vile though it may have been. We have set fire to our cultural record for no reason;</p></div></blockquote><p>We have not "set fire to our cultural record". The firemen in Bradbury's story systematically destroyed works to remove them from the culture. There is no such destruction and/or removal of works from our culture. There is a limiting of the works for the benefit of the copyright holders, but the works still exist and are accessible. The works are even available at lending libraries.</p><p>His statement is not a fallacy. It is an outright lie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>James Boyle , " Bradbury 's firemen at least set fire to their own culture out of deep ideological commitment , vile though it may have been .
We have set fire to our cultural record for no reason ; We have not " set fire to our cultural record " .
The firemen in Bradbury 's story systematically destroyed works to remove them from the culture .
There is no such destruction and/or removal of works from our culture .
There is a limiting of the works for the benefit of the copyright holders , but the works still exist and are accessible .
The works are even available at lending libraries.His statement is not a fallacy .
It is an outright lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Boyle, "Bradbury's firemen at least set fire to their own culture out of deep ideological commitment, vile though it may have been.
We have set fire to our cultural record for no reason;We have not "set fire to our cultural record".
The firemen in Bradbury's story systematically destroyed works to remove them from the culture.
There is no such destruction and/or removal of works from our culture.
There is a limiting of the works for the benefit of the copyright holders, but the works still exist and are accessible.
The works are even available at lending libraries.His statement is not a fallacy.
It is an outright lie.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611252</id>
	<title>Re:Boyle's logic failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262265600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speak for yourself.  Works still exist.  Three years ago at the university, I tried to get my hands on a couple of papers in my field.  They exist.  Barely.  At less than a dozen libraries in the United States.  Sorry--I didn't want to check on what I had to do to get a European intralibrary loan.  The publisher long ago went out of business.  Nobody knows where they are or can be found--and just because it shows in a catalog doesn't mean the first two places I contacted could locate it.  Or would have sent it to me even if they could.  I'm not talking about some rare original copy of some book by Chaucer here--but papers published in actual academic journals.  My professor had some 40 year old yellowed mimeograph (I think) he refused to let students see for fear it would crumble to dust.  They weren't in books, they weren't aggregated in later volumes--the author was long dead, the publisher out of business or purchased--google could find me some citations but no sources.  Yes--I could have read it--if I'd traveled to Boston.  Maybe.  Even then, I'd half wonder if it was actually in the stacks of the library or not.</p><p>It's not an outright lie--copyright destroys our culture by making it impossible to lawfully propagate and reproduce materials that are unnaturally scarce to the point of unavailability.  What happens as those 50 year old out of print journal articles fade to the point of being illegible?  When you take something, make it unnaturally scarce, and make it illegal to replenish it--eventually it decays to the point of nothing.</p><p>Just because fireman don't burn them doesn't mean copyright doesn't have the same effect when spread out over something first printed in the early 30's.  80 years later--I really can't get a copy without traveling.  And soon those will turn to dust, or only be available with white gloves in some obscure room.  If the university libraries don't pitch them.</p><p>Sorry--copyright is a fire--and it needs to be put out.  Any work that has more than 90\% of its original publications lost/destroyed should be immediately opened to the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speak for yourself .
Works still exist .
Three years ago at the university , I tried to get my hands on a couple of papers in my field .
They exist .
Barely. At less than a dozen libraries in the United States .
Sorry--I did n't want to check on what I had to do to get a European intralibrary loan .
The publisher long ago went out of business .
Nobody knows where they are or can be found--and just because it shows in a catalog does n't mean the first two places I contacted could locate it .
Or would have sent it to me even if they could .
I 'm not talking about some rare original copy of some book by Chaucer here--but papers published in actual academic journals .
My professor had some 40 year old yellowed mimeograph ( I think ) he refused to let students see for fear it would crumble to dust .
They were n't in books , they were n't aggregated in later volumes--the author was long dead , the publisher out of business or purchased--google could find me some citations but no sources .
Yes--I could have read it--if I 'd traveled to Boston .
Maybe. Even then , I 'd half wonder if it was actually in the stacks of the library or not.It 's not an outright lie--copyright destroys our culture by making it impossible to lawfully propagate and reproduce materials that are unnaturally scarce to the point of unavailability .
What happens as those 50 year old out of print journal articles fade to the point of being illegible ?
When you take something , make it unnaturally scarce , and make it illegal to replenish it--eventually it decays to the point of nothing.Just because fireman do n't burn them does n't mean copyright does n't have the same effect when spread out over something first printed in the early 30 's .
80 years later--I really ca n't get a copy without traveling .
And soon those will turn to dust , or only be available with white gloves in some obscure room .
If the university libraries do n't pitch them.Sorry--copyright is a fire--and it needs to be put out .
Any work that has more than 90 \ % of its original publications lost/destroyed should be immediately opened to the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speak for yourself.
Works still exist.
Three years ago at the university, I tried to get my hands on a couple of papers in my field.
They exist.
Barely.  At less than a dozen libraries in the United States.
Sorry--I didn't want to check on what I had to do to get a European intralibrary loan.
The publisher long ago went out of business.
Nobody knows where they are or can be found--and just because it shows in a catalog doesn't mean the first two places I contacted could locate it.
Or would have sent it to me even if they could.
I'm not talking about some rare original copy of some book by Chaucer here--but papers published in actual academic journals.
My professor had some 40 year old yellowed mimeograph (I think) he refused to let students see for fear it would crumble to dust.
They weren't in books, they weren't aggregated in later volumes--the author was long dead, the publisher out of business or purchased--google could find me some citations but no sources.
Yes--I could have read it--if I'd traveled to Boston.
Maybe.  Even then, I'd half wonder if it was actually in the stacks of the library or not.It's not an outright lie--copyright destroys our culture by making it impossible to lawfully propagate and reproduce materials that are unnaturally scarce to the point of unavailability.
What happens as those 50 year old out of print journal articles fade to the point of being illegible?
When you take something, make it unnaturally scarce, and make it illegal to replenish it--eventually it decays to the point of nothing.Just because fireman don't burn them doesn't mean copyright doesn't have the same effect when spread out over something first printed in the early 30's.
80 years later--I really can't get a copy without traveling.
And soon those will turn to dust, or only be available with white gloves in some obscure room.
If the university libraries don't pitch them.Sorry--copyright is a fire--and it needs to be put out.
Any work that has more than 90\% of its original publications lost/destroyed should be immediately opened to the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611130</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262264580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want more works in the public domain, then how about you go do some work yourself and put in the public domain by your own choice instead of whining about how you can't steal someone else's work after 28 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want more works in the public domain , then how about you go do some work yourself and put in the public domain by your own choice instead of whining about how you ca n't steal someone else 's work after 28 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want more works in the public domain, then how about you go do some work yourself and put in the public domain by your own choice instead of whining about how you can't steal someone else's work after 28 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613946</id>
	<title>Who cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230823860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw this shit...just go to irc and download all the old sci fi ebooks you need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw this shit...just go to irc and download all the old sci fi ebooks you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw this shit...just go to irc and download all the old sci fi ebooks you need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612130</id>
	<title>Copyright on scientific articles</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1262276760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright on scientific articles is the most evil of all, in my opinion as a researcher. I, and most other fellow scientists don't get paid by the publisher for our works. In fact, the salary of a scientist in general is meager. But we find pleasure in what we do, and in sharing our science with humankind. What we do is intended for everybody, and not to perpetually keep money flowing into the coffins of the Elseviers, the IOPs, Wileys of this world.  I am astonished sometimes, to see that a lot of fundamental articles, published decades ago (in the 60's, or even earlier) is still not freely accessible by the public. I can't help but think "what douchebags, profiting like leeches from the work of scientists, many now defunct, whereas the work was intended for the whole world".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright on scientific articles is the most evil of all , in my opinion as a researcher .
I , and most other fellow scientists do n't get paid by the publisher for our works .
In fact , the salary of a scientist in general is meager .
But we find pleasure in what we do , and in sharing our science with humankind .
What we do is intended for everybody , and not to perpetually keep money flowing into the coffins of the Elseviers , the IOPs , Wileys of this world .
I am astonished sometimes , to see that a lot of fundamental articles , published decades ago ( in the 60 's , or even earlier ) is still not freely accessible by the public .
I ca n't help but think " what douchebags , profiting like leeches from the work of scientists , many now defunct , whereas the work was intended for the whole world " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright on scientific articles is the most evil of all, in my opinion as a researcher.
I, and most other fellow scientists don't get paid by the publisher for our works.
In fact, the salary of a scientist in general is meager.
But we find pleasure in what we do, and in sharing our science with humankind.
What we do is intended for everybody, and not to perpetually keep money flowing into the coffins of the Elseviers, the IOPs, Wileys of this world.
I am astonished sometimes, to see that a lot of fundamental articles, published decades ago (in the 60's, or even earlier) is still not freely accessible by the public.
I can't help but think "what douchebags, profiting like leeches from the work of scientists, many now defunct, whereas the work was intended for the whole world".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611580</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1262268960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; Tell that to the voters.</p><p>
&nbsp; I do. I educate every one of them I have an opportunity to.</p><p>
&nbsp; Most of them, when they find out the truth of what's going on, are outraged.  Unfortunately most of them get outraged over the money aspect (how dare they make money I can't!) rather than it violating the principles of the foundations of this country, but I guess one can't have everything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;(</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office , no matter their party affiliation .
  Tell that to the voters .
  I do .
I educate every one of them I have an opportunity to .
  Most of them , when they find out the truth of what 's going on , are outraged .
Unfortunately most of them get outraged over the money aspect ( how dare they make money I ca n't !
) rather than it violating the principles of the foundations of this country , but I guess one ca n't have everything ; ( SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.
  Tell that to the voters.
  I do.
I educate every one of them I have an opportunity to.
  Most of them, when they find out the truth of what's going on, are outraged.
Unfortunately most of them get outraged over the money aspect (how dare they make money I can't!
) rather than it violating the principles of the foundations of this country, but I guess one can't have everything ;(SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613114</id>
	<title>This  used to happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230807180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What it likely means is that some mega-distributor (think WalMart or Sony) would snap up materials that no longer had an "owner" and they would publish and distribute them.</p></div><p>In the late '80s or early '90s my mom would take me shopping with her in Walmart.  At the time, the store had a large bin full of classic, public domain paperbacks printed by Aerie Books and offered as a 2/$1 deal. This was a boon for a poor kid who didn't have a computer or regular library access.  I'm not sure if anything similar is offered today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What it likely means is that some mega-distributor ( think WalMart or Sony ) would snap up materials that no longer had an " owner " and they would publish and distribute them.In the late '80s or early '90s my mom would take me shopping with her in Walmart .
At the time , the store had a large bin full of classic , public domain paperbacks printed by Aerie Books and offered as a 2/ $ 1 deal .
This was a boon for a poor kid who did n't have a computer or regular library access .
I 'm not sure if anything similar is offered today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it likely means is that some mega-distributor (think WalMart or Sony) would snap up materials that no longer had an "owner" and they would publish and distribute them.In the late '80s or early '90s my mom would take me shopping with her in Walmart.
At the time, the store had a large bin full of classic, public domain paperbacks printed by Aerie Books and offered as a 2/$1 deal.
This was a boon for a poor kid who didn't have a computer or regular library access.
I'm not sure if anything similar is offered today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612180</id>
	<title>Re:Boyle's logic failure</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1262277660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The firemen in Bradbury's story systematically destroyed works to remove them from the culture. There is no such destruction and/or removal of works from our culture.</p></div></blockquote><p>"Song of the South" says you're dead wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The firemen in Bradbury 's story systematically destroyed works to remove them from the culture .
There is no such destruction and/or removal of works from our culture .
" Song of the South " says you 're dead wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The firemen in Bradbury's story systematically destroyed works to remove them from the culture.
There is no such destruction and/or removal of works from our culture.
"Song of the South" says you're dead wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611032</id>
	<title>Re:Curse You Purchased Politicians</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1262263740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me tell you of a magical place where one can borrow and read a book. It is called a Library.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me tell you of a magical place where one can borrow and read a book .
It is called a Library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me tell you of a magical place where one can borrow and read a book.
It is called a Library.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612590</id>
	<title>Re:Berne Convention</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262285460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that would be a bad thing because...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that would be a bad thing because... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that would be a bad thing because...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612536</id>
	<title>That's not what ex post facto means</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1262284260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."</p><p>Congress broke the biggest law.</p></div><p>While I agree with the sentiment behind your post, a retroactive copyright extension is not an ex post facto law.</p><p>An ex post facto law is one that retroactively outlaws a past act, punishing someone for doing something that was legal at the time. Retroactive copyright extension doesn't do that: if I legally copy a public domain work today, and then the copyright term is extended tomorrow (taking that work out of the public domain), I'm in the clear. Only <i>future</i> copying is illegal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed .
" Congress broke the biggest law.While I agree with the sentiment behind your post , a retroactive copyright extension is not an ex post facto law.An ex post facto law is one that retroactively outlaws a past act , punishing someone for doing something that was legal at the time .
Retroactive copyright extension does n't do that : if I legally copy a public domain work today , and then the copyright term is extended tomorrow ( taking that work out of the public domain ) , I 'm in the clear .
Only future copying is illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
"Congress broke the biggest law.While I agree with the sentiment behind your post, a retroactive copyright extension is not an ex post facto law.An ex post facto law is one that retroactively outlaws a past act, punishing someone for doing something that was legal at the time.
Retroactive copyright extension doesn't do that: if I legally copy a public domain work today, and then the copyright term is extended tomorrow (taking that work out of the public domain), I'm in the clear.
Only future copying is illegal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912</id>
	<title>14+14 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262262360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original copyright term was 14 years, with another 14 years if you bothered to renew.  That's the maximum copyright any work should get.  Anything longer than that is grossly unfair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original copyright term was 14 years , with another 14 years if you bothered to renew .
That 's the maximum copyright any work should get .
Anything longer than that is grossly unfair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original copyright term was 14 years, with another 14 years if you bothered to renew.
That's the maximum copyright any work should get.
Anything longer than that is grossly unfair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610856</id>
	<title>One hour to go (UTC)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262261880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.</p></div><p>...at the beginning of the decade I believed this, but turns out it doesn't if the damage is sufficient.</p><p>To sum up this decade: We marvelled upon the freedoms that networked computers promised; not merely electronic versions of existing media, but a whole new frontier, only to watch it be crushed for the most trivial of reasons.</p><p>1. Protectionism in the popular music and film industry. All that is trivial, frivolous yet mildly entertaining in our culture.<br>2. The completely non-existent, child predator moral-panic, boogeyman.<br>3. Security theatre and the statistically vanishing threat of global terrorism.</p><p>Out of a comprehensive list of possible reasons, those have to right at the bottom of the list, scraping the barrel of pathetic excuses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it....at the beginning of the decade I believed this , but turns out it does n't if the damage is sufficient.To sum up this decade : We marvelled upon the freedoms that networked computers promised ; not merely electronic versions of existing media , but a whole new frontier , only to watch it be crushed for the most trivial of reasons.1 .
Protectionism in the popular music and film industry .
All that is trivial , frivolous yet mildly entertaining in our culture.2 .
The completely non-existent , child predator moral-panic , boogeyman.3 .
Security theatre and the statistically vanishing threat of global terrorism.Out of a comprehensive list of possible reasons , those have to right at the bottom of the list , scraping the barrel of pathetic excuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it....at the beginning of the decade I believed this, but turns out it doesn't if the damage is sufficient.To sum up this decade: We marvelled upon the freedoms that networked computers promised; not merely electronic versions of existing media, but a whole new frontier, only to watch it be crushed for the most trivial of reasons.1.
Protectionism in the popular music and film industry.
All that is trivial, frivolous yet mildly entertaining in our culture.2.
The completely non-existent, child predator moral-panic, boogeyman.3.
Security theatre and the statistically vanishing threat of global terrorism.Out of a comprehensive list of possible reasons, those have to right at the bottom of the list, scraping the barrel of pathetic excuses.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612526</id>
	<title>Re:Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1262283840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that there are millions of iPhones, millions of Kindles, millions of Pre and G!, the distribution is no longer an issue.  The issue is availability of content.  Anything not in copyright, and available in digital form, is essentially free. One can pay a small amount so it is formated pretty, but is still essentially free.  There is no money to be made in distribution.
<p>
This is why copyright is so important to the everyone who wants to make their cut.  As soon as it is out of copyright, Apple can no longer make their pennies distributing it.  More importantly, they can no longer distribute it in a form that forces consumers to use their platform.  If movies, for example, are distributed in MKV, which the iPhone cannot even handle, then the major players are cut out.
</p><p>
For pop stuff, this is irrelevant.  No one seriously cares if Mickey mouse or Steven King novels are in copyright.  The used market makes acquisition cheap, and even new they are priced to sell.
</p><p>
What will be important are the pieces of art and science we use to educate the next generation.  This is  the thing.  Education is becoming wider because it is becoming cheaper.  It will not be too long until many schools will use electronic text.  Right now, texts are so expensive many schools use no text at all.  We would expect school to issue a reader, with most of the content the student needs preloaded, since much of the first year content can be self created using out of copyright materials.  But that is not the case because, for example, math and science material that should be out of copyright will not be.  But even so, there are many references that are and schools will be going in that direction.
</p><p>
In this way the copyright might bite the publishers in the ass.  Adolescents want the newest and greatest thing, but no if they have to pay for it, and not if it is for school.  We see this already with music.  If a school can choose not to update the cannon of literature, and stay with material that is out of copyright so it can be given to the students for free, then most of 20th century literature is out.  Since much of the great American literature is 20th century, students continue to get the idea that only European literature is good, and America sucks.  People grow up reading buyting English literature rather than American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that there are millions of iPhones , millions of Kindles , millions of Pre and G ! , the distribution is no longer an issue .
The issue is availability of content .
Anything not in copyright , and available in digital form , is essentially free .
One can pay a small amount so it is formated pretty , but is still essentially free .
There is no money to be made in distribution .
This is why copyright is so important to the everyone who wants to make their cut .
As soon as it is out of copyright , Apple can no longer make their pennies distributing it .
More importantly , they can no longer distribute it in a form that forces consumers to use their platform .
If movies , for example , are distributed in MKV , which the iPhone can not even handle , then the major players are cut out .
For pop stuff , this is irrelevant .
No one seriously cares if Mickey mouse or Steven King novels are in copyright .
The used market makes acquisition cheap , and even new they are priced to sell .
What will be important are the pieces of art and science we use to educate the next generation .
This is the thing .
Education is becoming wider because it is becoming cheaper .
It will not be too long until many schools will use electronic text .
Right now , texts are so expensive many schools use no text at all .
We would expect school to issue a reader , with most of the content the student needs preloaded , since much of the first year content can be self created using out of copyright materials .
But that is not the case because , for example , math and science material that should be out of copyright will not be .
But even so , there are many references that are and schools will be going in that direction .
In this way the copyright might bite the publishers in the ass .
Adolescents want the newest and greatest thing , but no if they have to pay for it , and not if it is for school .
We see this already with music .
If a school can choose not to update the cannon of literature , and stay with material that is out of copyright so it can be given to the students for free , then most of 20th century literature is out .
Since much of the great American literature is 20th century , students continue to get the idea that only European literature is good , and America sucks .
People grow up reading buyting English literature rather than American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that there are millions of iPhones, millions of Kindles, millions of Pre and G!, the distribution is no longer an issue.
The issue is availability of content.
Anything not in copyright, and available in digital form, is essentially free.
One can pay a small amount so it is formated pretty, but is still essentially free.
There is no money to be made in distribution.
This is why copyright is so important to the everyone who wants to make their cut.
As soon as it is out of copyright, Apple can no longer make their pennies distributing it.
More importantly, they can no longer distribute it in a form that forces consumers to use their platform.
If movies, for example, are distributed in MKV, which the iPhone cannot even handle, then the major players are cut out.
For pop stuff, this is irrelevant.
No one seriously cares if Mickey mouse or Steven King novels are in copyright.
The used market makes acquisition cheap, and even new they are priced to sell.
What will be important are the pieces of art and science we use to educate the next generation.
This is  the thing.
Education is becoming wider because it is becoming cheaper.
It will not be too long until many schools will use electronic text.
Right now, texts are so expensive many schools use no text at all.
We would expect school to issue a reader, with most of the content the student needs preloaded, since much of the first year content can be self created using out of copyright materials.
But that is not the case because, for example, math and science material that should be out of copyright will not be.
But even so, there are many references that are and schools will be going in that direction.
In this way the copyright might bite the publishers in the ass.
Adolescents want the newest and greatest thing, but no if they have to pay for it, and not if it is for school.
We see this already with music.
If a school can choose not to update the cannon of literature, and stay with material that is out of copyright so it can be given to the students for free, then most of 20th century literature is out.
Since much of the great American literature is 20th century, students continue to get the idea that only European literature is good, and America sucks.
People grow up reading buyting English literature rather than American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</id>
	<title>Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262262240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that people do not seem to understand is that if works were entering public domain this does not mean that there would be huge numbers of things suddenly available for free.  What it likely means is that some mega-distributor (think WalMart or Sony) would snap up materials that no longer had an "owner" and <i>they would publish and distribute them.</i></p><p>Now some people might laugh at a book on the shelf at WalMart that was simply a reprint of something that had entered public domain.  Alternatively, there are many that would buy it.  Printing books is cheap, promoting them is not.  If WalMart had zero cost other than simply putting the book on the shelf, would they print lots of books?</p><p>Would Sony make them available "exclusively" for the Sony Reader?  Wouldn't it be fun to see Amazon and Sony <b>both</b> declaring that they exclusively were making Gone With the Wind available to for their devices?  And then Barnes and Nobel coming along with "their" version for their device.</p><p>Free stuff isn't interesting to people with large distribution channels.  Stuff you can charge for, even just 1\% over the cost of production, is much more interesting.  Stuff you can charge 200\% over the cost of production is even more interesting.  As long as most of the world doesn't have access to high-speed Internet connections or have the knowledge to make use of them distribution is going to be where the big bucks are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that people do not seem to understand is that if works were entering public domain this does not mean that there would be huge numbers of things suddenly available for free .
What it likely means is that some mega-distributor ( think WalMart or Sony ) would snap up materials that no longer had an " owner " and they would publish and distribute them.Now some people might laugh at a book on the shelf at WalMart that was simply a reprint of something that had entered public domain .
Alternatively , there are many that would buy it .
Printing books is cheap , promoting them is not .
If WalMart had zero cost other than simply putting the book on the shelf , would they print lots of books ? Would Sony make them available " exclusively " for the Sony Reader ?
Would n't it be fun to see Amazon and Sony both declaring that they exclusively were making Gone With the Wind available to for their devices ?
And then Barnes and Nobel coming along with " their " version for their device.Free stuff is n't interesting to people with large distribution channels .
Stuff you can charge for , even just 1 \ % over the cost of production , is much more interesting .
Stuff you can charge 200 \ % over the cost of production is even more interesting .
As long as most of the world does n't have access to high-speed Internet connections or have the knowledge to make use of them distribution is going to be where the big bucks are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that people do not seem to understand is that if works were entering public domain this does not mean that there would be huge numbers of things suddenly available for free.
What it likely means is that some mega-distributor (think WalMart or Sony) would snap up materials that no longer had an "owner" and they would publish and distribute them.Now some people might laugh at a book on the shelf at WalMart that was simply a reprint of something that had entered public domain.
Alternatively, there are many that would buy it.
Printing books is cheap, promoting them is not.
If WalMart had zero cost other than simply putting the book on the shelf, would they print lots of books?Would Sony make them available "exclusively" for the Sony Reader?
Wouldn't it be fun to see Amazon and Sony both declaring that they exclusively were making Gone With the Wind available to for their devices?
And then Barnes and Nobel coming along with "their" version for their device.Free stuff isn't interesting to people with large distribution channels.
Stuff you can charge for, even just 1\% over the cost of production, is much more interesting.
Stuff you can charge 200\% over the cost of production is even more interesting.
As long as most of the world doesn't have access to high-speed Internet connections or have the knowledge to make use of them distribution is going to be where the big bucks are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611504</id>
	<title>Re:One hour to go (UTC)</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262268120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, the internet is still routing around stuff. What you're seeing are the politicians continuing to play whack-a-mole but causing massive collateral damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , the internet is still routing around stuff .
What you 're seeing are the politicians continuing to play whack-a-mole but causing massive collateral damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, the internet is still routing around stuff.
What you're seeing are the politicians continuing to play whack-a-mole but causing massive collateral damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611686</id>
	<title>Re:Steamboat Willie Event Horizon</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1262270160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this is both a good and a bad analogy, Mickey Mouse has become a cultural icon that is synonymous with the Disney conglomerate.</p><p>Mickey Mouse is almost a trademark in a way, that he will be rigorously defended and Disney companies will always win because there is no prior art or concept beyond the character's creation by the man whose legacy bears his name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this is both a good and a bad analogy , Mickey Mouse has become a cultural icon that is synonymous with the Disney conglomerate.Mickey Mouse is almost a trademark in a way , that he will be rigorously defended and Disney companies will always win because there is no prior art or concept beyond the character 's creation by the man whose legacy bears his name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this is both a good and a bad analogy, Mickey Mouse has become a cultural icon that is synonymous with the Disney conglomerate.Mickey Mouse is almost a trademark in a way, that he will be rigorously defended and Disney companies will always win because there is no prior art or concept beyond the character's creation by the man whose legacy bears his name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613770</id>
	<title>Re:Congress is Working Well</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1230821160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Here we go, the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I wonder if anyone who listens to talk radio would realize that your post was satirical.</p><p>It sounds exactly like something a certain radio host who was rushed to the hospital yesterday with "chest pains" from an oxycontin overdose would say.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go , the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman .
I wonder if anyone who listens to talk radio would realize that your post was satirical.It sounds exactly like something a certain radio host who was rushed to the hospital yesterday with " chest pains " from an oxycontin overdose would say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go, the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman.
I wonder if anyone who listens to talk radio would realize that your post was satirical.It sounds exactly like something a certain radio host who was rushed to the hospital yesterday with "chest pains" from an oxycontin overdose would say.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30644764</id>
	<title>Enough already!</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1231101540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every couple of days there's another slashdot discussion bemoaning the evils of the current copyright scheme and advocating changes.</p><p>Get it through your thick skulls: the only changes that you are likely to see will be either for the worse or purely cosmetic, because the only people able to effect a change are the ones that benefit most from the current system and there is nothing, <b> <i>*NOTHING*</i> </b> you can do about it.</p><p>Democracy?  Bah!  As if the ability to choose between Kang and Kodos counts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every couple of days there 's another slashdot discussion bemoaning the evils of the current copyright scheme and advocating changes.Get it through your thick skulls : the only changes that you are likely to see will be either for the worse or purely cosmetic , because the only people able to effect a change are the ones that benefit most from the current system and there is nothing , * NOTHING * you can do about it.Democracy ?
Bah ! As if the ability to choose between Kang and Kodos counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every couple of days there's another slashdot discussion bemoaning the evils of the current copyright scheme and advocating changes.Get it through your thick skulls: the only changes that you are likely to see will be either for the worse or purely cosmetic, because the only people able to effect a change are the ones that benefit most from the current system and there is nothing,  *NOTHING*  you can do about it.Democracy?
Bah!  As if the ability to choose between Kang and Kodos counts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612502</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1262283120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What did the tree do?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div></blockquote><p>Ask for Cher's autograph.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What did the tree do ?
: ( Ask for Cher 's autograph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did the tree do?
:(Ask for Cher's autograph.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611056</id>
	<title>Re:Curse You Purchased Politicians</title>
	<author>SeaFox</author>
	<datestamp>1262263860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could just make a statement about these copyright extensions and pirate an etext off the Net.<br>How likely do you think it is someone would actually come looking for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could just make a statement about these copyright extensions and pirate an etext off the Net.How likely do you think it is someone would actually come looking for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could just make a statement about these copyright extensions and pirate an etext off the Net.How likely do you think it is someone would actually come looking for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610818</id>
	<title>Why so black arm band?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262261400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tone of the submitter was as if the works had some how died or at least been banned from distribution. Back in the 50s there was no internet or home computers. Without traditional distribution and funding most of these works either would have never existed in the first place or had never been released for the public. Be happy the works exist so rights can be debated over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tone of the submitter was as if the works had some how died or at least been banned from distribution .
Back in the 50s there was no internet or home computers .
Without traditional distribution and funding most of these works either would have never existed in the first place or had never been released for the public .
Be happy the works exist so rights can be debated over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tone of the submitter was as if the works had some how died or at least been banned from distribution.
Back in the 50s there was no internet or home computers.
Without traditional distribution and funding most of these works either would have never existed in the first place or had never been released for the public.
Be happy the works exist so rights can be debated over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611652</id>
	<title>Dr Venture has the right idea ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262269800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bypass all patent laws<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... buy a compound on a Private Island and become a nation unto yourself.  Get beneficial tax benefits, a low cost labor force, and few environmental and business regulations.  Win Government contracts by undercutting all competition.  If only that pesky Guild didn't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bypass all patent laws ... buy a compound on a Private Island and become a nation unto yourself .
Get beneficial tax benefits , a low cost labor force , and few environmental and business regulations .
Win Government contracts by undercutting all competition .
If only that pesky Guild did n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bypass all patent laws ... buy a compound on a Private Island and become a nation unto yourself.
Get beneficial tax benefits, a low cost labor force, and few environmental and business regulations.
Win Government contracts by undercutting all competition.
If only that pesky Guild didn't exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30625656</id>
	<title>Do unto others, just not unto me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230888180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cannot wait for the day that I am able to live off of the work of others. I really should have attained that MBA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not wait for the day that I am able to live off of the work of others .
I really should have attained that MBA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot wait for the day that I am able to live off of the work of others.
I really should have attained that MBA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612554</id>
	<title>How much?</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1262284500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... how many Libraries of Congress worth of culture have we lost?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... how many Libraries of Congress worth of culture have we lost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... how many Libraries of Congress worth of culture have we lost?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612754</id>
	<title>Weird US laws....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262288700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Spain we have the right to copy whatever copyrighted material to anybody, just not violating these two points <b>at the same time</b>:</p><p>- You are not to earning money.<br>- Nonody is f*cked by the copy (so, the author grants it)</p><p>So, in any non-comercial transaction (i.e. p2p) the public access to culture prevails over any other right.</p><p>My question is....</p><p>If somebody from a so different lawsuit as the US comes to Spain and I give him 1TB of mp3 whilst in Spain.... Can he go back to the US and still be sticked to US laws? in fact, that was a present, and that was legal in Spain... I don't see it illegal to 'move that present' into the US, as the mp3s on themselves aren't illegal at all!</p><p>Any ideas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Spain we have the right to copy whatever copyrighted material to anybody , just not violating these two points at the same time : - You are not to earning money.- Nonody is f * cked by the copy ( so , the author grants it ) So , in any non-comercial transaction ( i.e .
p2p ) the public access to culture prevails over any other right.My question is....If somebody from a so different lawsuit as the US comes to Spain and I give him 1TB of mp3 whilst in Spain.... Can he go back to the US and still be sticked to US laws ?
in fact , that was a present , and that was legal in Spain... I do n't see it illegal to 'move that present ' into the US , as the mp3s on themselves are n't illegal at all ! Any ideas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Spain we have the right to copy whatever copyrighted material to anybody, just not violating these two points at the same time:- You are not to earning money.- Nonody is f*cked by the copy (so, the author grants it)So, in any non-comercial transaction (i.e.
p2p) the public access to culture prevails over any other right.My question is....If somebody from a so different lawsuit as the US comes to Spain and I give him 1TB of mp3 whilst in Spain.... Can he go back to the US and still be sticked to US laws?
in fact, that was a present, and that was legal in Spain... I don't see it illegal to 'move that present' into the US, as the mp3s on themselves aren't illegal at all!Any ideas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612418</id>
	<title>Re:Offensive</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1262281620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feminazis never have a holiday either.  Go on, it's New Year's.  Take a break.  You're not going to win any converts tonight, everyone is to drunk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feminazis never have a holiday either .
Go on , it 's New Year 's .
Take a break .
You 're not going to win any converts tonight , everyone is to drunk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feminazis never have a holiday either.
Go on, it's New Year's.
Take a break.
You're not going to win any converts tonight, everyone is to drunk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986</id>
	<title>Congress is Working Well</title>
	<author>mtrachtenberg</author>
	<datestamp>1262263020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we go, the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman.  Congress works fantastically well if you're willing to invest in it.  The return on a few hundred thousand bucks can reach into the billions, as the entertainment, weaponry, and banking/gambling industries have shown -- go find any other investment with that sort of ROI.  Stop yer socialist whining -- Congress does a fantastic job when it's made worth its while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go , the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman .
Congress works fantastically well if you 're willing to invest in it .
The return on a few hundred thousand bucks can reach into the billions , as the entertainment , weaponry , and banking/gambling industries have shown -- go find any other investment with that sort of ROI .
Stop yer socialist whining -- Congress does a fantastic job when it 's made worth its while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go, the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman.
Congress works fantastically well if you're willing to invest in it.
The return on a few hundred thousand bucks can reach into the billions, as the entertainment, weaponry, and banking/gambling industries have shown -- go find any other investment with that sort of ROI.
Stop yer socialist whining -- Congress does a fantastic job when it's made worth its while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611746</id>
	<title>Re:One hour to go (UTC)</title>
	<author>lordmetroid</author>
	<datestamp>1262271120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No no, you may think it is not routing around but I think you just haven't been searching for the rerouted content all that hard. Words on paper(which laws are) is not an obstacle if people ignore the words.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No no , you may think it is not routing around but I think you just have n't been searching for the rerouted content all that hard .
Words on paper ( which laws are ) is not an obstacle if people ignore the words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no, you may think it is not routing around but I think you just haven't been searching for the rerouted content all that hard.
Words on paper(which laws are) is not an obstacle if people ignore the words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611326</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>/dev/trash</author>
	<datestamp>1262266260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude.  in 1789 people lived to be 35 on average. So yeah writing a book when you were 30, meant that your kids and grandkids could be rich too.  Life expectancy has grown and so should the 14+14 artifact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude .
in 1789 people lived to be 35 on average .
So yeah writing a book when you were 30 , meant that your kids and grandkids could be rich too .
Life expectancy has grown and so should the 14 + 14 artifact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude.
in 1789 people lived to be 35 on average.
So yeah writing a book when you were 30, meant that your kids and grandkids could be rich too.
Life expectancy has grown and so should the 14+14 artifact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611536</id>
	<title>Re:Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262268360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Sony, Barnes and Noble and Walmart sell Gone With The Wind for $10 per copy<br>2) People download it from the net but the people without internet can't<br>3) Random Publisher A releases their version to this market for $9 a copy, Sony, B&amp;N and WM lose their business, until...<br>4) Sony starts selling for $8 a copy<br>And so on, until the book is sold to everyone for 10 cents above what the paper, binding and printing costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Sony , Barnes and Noble and Walmart sell Gone With The Wind for $ 10 per copy2 ) People download it from the net but the people without internet can't3 ) Random Publisher A releases their version to this market for $ 9 a copy , Sony , B&amp;N and WM lose their business , until...4 ) Sony starts selling for $ 8 a copyAnd so on , until the book is sold to everyone for 10 cents above what the paper , binding and printing costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Sony, Barnes and Noble and Walmart sell Gone With The Wind for $10 per copy2) People download it from the net but the people without internet can't3) Random Publisher A releases their version to this market for $9 a copy, Sony, B&amp;N and WM lose their business, until...4) Sony starts selling for $8 a copyAnd so on, until the book is sold to everyone for 10 cents above what the paper, binding and printing costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611302</id>
	<title>Re:Congress is Working Well</title>
	<author>Compuser84</author>
	<datestamp>1262266080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You sir, would get all my mod points if I had any right now. That is the best description of Congress I have ever read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , would get all my mod points if I had any right now .
That is the best description of Congress I have ever read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, would get all my mod points if I had any right now.
That is the best description of Congress I have ever read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262262300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any legislator that voted for these <b>retroactive</b> extensions should be <b>arrested</b>.</p></div><p>Fixed that.</p><p>US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 3:</p><p>"No bill of attainder or <b>ex post facto law</b> shall be passed."</p><p>Congress broke the biggest law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any legislator that voted for these retroactive extensions should be arrested.Fixed that.US Constitution , Article 1 , Section 9 , paragraph 3 : " No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed .
" Congress broke the biggest law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any legislator that voted for these retroactive extensions should be arrested.Fixed that.US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 3:"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
"Congress broke the biggest law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611958</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262274360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What did the tree do?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div><p>I'm imagining nothing beyond dropping a little snow...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What did the tree do ?
: ( I 'm imagining nothing beyond dropping a little snow.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did the tree do?
:(I'm imagining nothing beyond dropping a little snow...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611920</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262273700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Linux reaches the public domain, would people have the right to distribute modifications in binary form only?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Linux reaches the public domain , would people have the right to distribute modifications in binary form only ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Linux reaches the public domain, would people have the right to distribute modifications in binary form only?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610854</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1262261820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.</p></div><p>Or run into a pine tree at high rates of speed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office , no matter their party affiliation.Or run into a pine tree at high rates of speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any legislator that voted for these extensions should be voted out of office, no matter their party affiliation.Or run into a pine tree at high rates of speed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610900</id>
	<title>Do they care?</title>
	<author>Grey Loki</author>
	<datestamp>1262262240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if the people who actually created the work care that after five decades they may not be able to make a miniscule amount of income from it - personally, I would be fairly embarrassed if I made one 'great work' and then ended up desperately lobbying governments to protect my one meagre source of income, instead of continuing my artistic development and releasing new material that consumers value enough to buy (while getting a kick out of the fact that someone's rewritten a story that I wrote decades ago, and is now making their own name).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the people who actually created the work care that after five decades they may not be able to make a miniscule amount of income from it - personally , I would be fairly embarrassed if I made one 'great work ' and then ended up desperately lobbying governments to protect my one meagre source of income , instead of continuing my artistic development and releasing new material that consumers value enough to buy ( while getting a kick out of the fact that someone 's rewritten a story that I wrote decades ago , and is now making their own name ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the people who actually created the work care that after five decades they may not be able to make a miniscule amount of income from it - personally, I would be fairly embarrassed if I made one 'great work' and then ended up desperately lobbying governments to protect my one meagre source of income, instead of continuing my artistic development and releasing new material that consumers value enough to buy (while getting a kick out of the fact that someone's rewritten a story that I wrote decades ago, and is now making their own name).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30614118</id>
	<title>Re:Boyle's logic failure</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1230826260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let us examine your statements.</p><blockquote><div><p> At less than a dozen libraries in the United States...Nobody knows where they are or can be found--and just because it shows in a catalog doesn't mean the first two places I contacted could locate it.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, you are a lazy fuck</p><blockquote><div><p>Or would have sent it to me even if they could.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Maybe, maybe not, but you didn't even try. Or, ask them to send you a fair-use copy.</p><blockquote><div><p> My professor had some 40 year old yellowed mimeograph</p></div> </blockquote><p> I see.... You are trying to find a 40yo magazine article.</p><p>In other words, you are a lazy loser who wanted to find a 40yo magazine article, did a crappy job of trying to find a copy, and gave up. And now, you are trying to blame your failure on copyright, which, even if it didn't exist and the article was in the public domain, did not cause the loss and/or destruction of the original publications.</p><p>That about sum it up, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us examine your statements .
At less than a dozen libraries in the United States...Nobody knows where they are or can be found--and just because it shows in a catalog does n't mean the first two places I contacted could locate it.So , you are a lazy fuckOr would have sent it to me even if they could .
Maybe , maybe not , but you did n't even try .
Or , ask them to send you a fair-use copy .
My professor had some 40 year old yellowed mimeograph I see.... You are trying to find a 40yo magazine article.In other words , you are a lazy loser who wanted to find a 40yo magazine article , did a crappy job of trying to find a copy , and gave up .
And now , you are trying to blame your failure on copyright , which , even if it did n't exist and the article was in the public domain , did not cause the loss and/or destruction of the original publications.That about sum it up , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us examine your statements.
At less than a dozen libraries in the United States...Nobody knows where they are or can be found--and just because it shows in a catalog doesn't mean the first two places I contacted could locate it.So, you are a lazy fuckOr would have sent it to me even if they could.
Maybe, maybe not, but you didn't even try.
Or, ask them to send you a fair-use copy.
My professor had some 40 year old yellowed mimeograph  I see.... You are trying to find a 40yo magazine article.In other words, you are a lazy loser who wanted to find a 40yo magazine article, did a crappy job of trying to find a copy, and gave up.
And now, you are trying to blame your failure on copyright, which, even if it didn't exist and the article was in the public domain, did not cause the loss and/or destruction of the original publications.That about sum it up, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611296</id>
	<title>Heretic ;)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262266080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's too bad your mind is too closed to the real harm being done by too-long copyright.  Derivative works: if the term was twenty years we could be enjoying remakes of Alien or 2001 or anything from back then.  Not only would we as a culture be enriched by having more choice but the people who created those choices would have their own twenty years to prove they understand capitalism as it relates to society as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too bad your mind is too closed to the real harm being done by too-long copyright .
Derivative works : if the term was twenty years we could be enjoying remakes of Alien or 2001 or anything from back then .
Not only would we as a culture be enriched by having more choice but the people who created those choices would have their own twenty years to prove they understand capitalism as it relates to society as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too bad your mind is too closed to the real harm being done by too-long copyright.
Derivative works: if the term was twenty years we could be enjoying remakes of Alien or 2001 or anything from back then.
Not only would we as a culture be enriched by having more choice but the people who created those choices would have their own twenty years to prove they understand capitalism as it relates to society as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611884</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262273100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but Congress is flagrantly abusing the ONLY power granted to it that gives a REASON for that power: to get works in to the public domain for the greater good, they may grant TEMPORARY copyright or patent. Perpetually extending the copyrights retroactively is NOT temporary, and does NOT get the works in to the public domain. They are violating the spirit AND the letter of the law on that power granted to them, and should be prosecuted and punished for it. Period. End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but Congress is flagrantly abusing the ONLY power granted to it that gives a REASON for that power : to get works in to the public domain for the greater good , they may grant TEMPORARY copyright or patent .
Perpetually extending the copyrights retroactively is NOT temporary , and does NOT get the works in to the public domain .
They are violating the spirit AND the letter of the law on that power granted to them , and should be prosecuted and punished for it .
Period. End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but Congress is flagrantly abusing the ONLY power granted to it that gives a REASON for that power: to get works in to the public domain for the greater good, they may grant TEMPORARY copyright or patent.
Perpetually extending the copyrights retroactively is NOT temporary, and does NOT get the works in to the public domain.
They are violating the spirit AND the letter of the law on that power granted to them, and should be prosecuted and punished for it.
Period. End of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30615766</id>
	<title>Corporations are not citizens</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1230800400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporations do not have rights; sadly, we give them rights and falsely site a legal ruling (which never happened) while at the same time restricting rights to non-citizens under the claim that only citizens have any rights. This is a SICK situation we are in. It undermines democracy.</p><p>Corporations were pretty much non-existent before the civil war. Why should corporations be allowed to hold such assets at all? They'll be kept busy dealing with the owners and contract agreements... and wanting the owner to LIVE longer instead of laying them off later.</p><p>Not that any reform is possible; we must first get approval from the WTO...</p><p>You are just a consumer and some are voters- no large organization thinks of you as a citizen anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations do not have rights ; sadly , we give them rights and falsely site a legal ruling ( which never happened ) while at the same time restricting rights to non-citizens under the claim that only citizens have any rights .
This is a SICK situation we are in .
It undermines democracy.Corporations were pretty much non-existent before the civil war .
Why should corporations be allowed to hold such assets at all ?
They 'll be kept busy dealing with the owners and contract agreements... and wanting the owner to LIVE longer instead of laying them off later.Not that any reform is possible ; we must first get approval from the WTO...You are just a consumer and some are voters- no large organization thinks of you as a citizen anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations do not have rights; sadly, we give them rights and falsely site a legal ruling (which never happened) while at the same time restricting rights to non-citizens under the claim that only citizens have any rights.
This is a SICK situation we are in.
It undermines democracy.Corporations were pretty much non-existent before the civil war.
Why should corporations be allowed to hold such assets at all?
They'll be kept busy dealing with the owners and contract agreements... and wanting the owner to LIVE longer instead of laying them off later.Not that any reform is possible; we must first get approval from the WTO...You are just a consumer and some are voters- no large organization thinks of you as a citizen anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610816</id>
	<title>Worded this way....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262261400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I find that you just want media that is the IP of others (legally so) offensive.</p><p>You've just turned me off to the whole IP copyright abandedment argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I find that you just want media that is the IP of others ( legally so ) offensive.You 've just turned me off to the whole IP copyright abandedment argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I find that you just want media that is the IP of others (legally so) offensive.You've just turned me off to the whole IP copyright abandedment argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612346</id>
	<title>Ironies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262280120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a world where the lyrics of RATM, say, or Henry Miller's rants,  are even copyrightable to begin with, a world where an RMS can seriously be considered a communist by some, you want to talk about irony? And since when is irony a consideration in public policy discussions anyway? Good God, man, we'd have to dismantle 90\% of the federal government.</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a world where the lyrics of RATM , say , or Henry Miller 's rants , are even copyrightable to begin with , a world where an RMS can seriously be considered a communist by some , you want to talk about irony ?
And since when is irony a consideration in public policy discussions anyway ?
Good God , man , we 'd have to dismantle 90 \ % of the federal government.Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a world where the lyrics of RATM, say, or Henry Miller's rants,  are even copyrightable to begin with, a world where an RMS can seriously be considered a communist by some, you want to talk about irony?
And since when is irony a consideration in public policy discussions anyway?
Good God, man, we'd have to dismantle 90\% of the federal government.Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611428</id>
	<title>Re:Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1262267400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What it likely means is that some mega-distributor (think WalMart or Sony) would snap up materials that no longer had an "owner" and they would publish and distribute them.</p></div></blockquote><p>While WalMart or Sony might choose to publish and distribute a public domain work, that doesn't actually stop anyone else from publishing it and distributing it at the same time.
</p><p>Nor does it prevent the Project Gutenberg people from adding it to their library.
</p><p>Note, as examples, the King James Bible, the works of Shakespeare, the Sherlock Holmes stories, the works of Verne and Wells, etc.  All of them public domain, all of them still reprinted by an assortment of publishers from time to time, all of them available as downloads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What it likely means is that some mega-distributor ( think WalMart or Sony ) would snap up materials that no longer had an " owner " and they would publish and distribute them.While WalMart or Sony might choose to publish and distribute a public domain work , that does n't actually stop anyone else from publishing it and distributing it at the same time .
Nor does it prevent the Project Gutenberg people from adding it to their library .
Note , as examples , the King James Bible , the works of Shakespeare , the Sherlock Holmes stories , the works of Verne and Wells , etc .
All of them public domain , all of them still reprinted by an assortment of publishers from time to time , all of them available as downloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it likely means is that some mega-distributor (think WalMart or Sony) would snap up materials that no longer had an "owner" and they would publish and distribute them.While WalMart or Sony might choose to publish and distribute a public domain work, that doesn't actually stop anyone else from publishing it and distributing it at the same time.
Nor does it prevent the Project Gutenberg people from adding it to their library.
Note, as examples, the King James Bible, the works of Shakespeare, the Sherlock Holmes stories, the works of Verne and Wells, etc.
All of them public domain, all of them still reprinted by an assortment of publishers from time to time, all of them available as downloads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612776</id>
	<title>Re:Congress is Working Well</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1262289240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just the buying.<br><br>If you look at the Two Parties combined, they had &gt;97\% of all the votes in the 2008 and 2004 US elections. Google for the results.<br><br>The US voters are mostly two factions who support one of the two parties.<br><br>Those who don't vote, don't count - but if they actually bothered they could actually make a change - the numbers of eligible voters who don't vote outnumber a single faction of voters. If they actually voted, even if it's spread out across different candidates who don't win, the Two Parties might change what they do so they go back to &gt;97\%.<br><br>As it is, why should the Two Parties change the way they do stuff when they get nearly 100\% of the votes? That'll be a crazy thing to do right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just the buying.If you look at the Two Parties combined , they had &gt; 97 \ % of all the votes in the 2008 and 2004 US elections .
Google for the results.The US voters are mostly two factions who support one of the two parties.Those who do n't vote , do n't count - but if they actually bothered they could actually make a change - the numbers of eligible voters who do n't vote outnumber a single faction of voters .
If they actually voted , even if it 's spread out across different candidates who do n't win , the Two Parties might change what they do so they go back to &gt; 97 \ % .As it is , why should the Two Parties change the way they do stuff when they get nearly 100 \ % of the votes ?
That 'll be a crazy thing to do right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just the buying.If you look at the Two Parties combined, they had &gt;97\% of all the votes in the 2008 and 2004 US elections.
Google for the results.The US voters are mostly two factions who support one of the two parties.Those who don't vote, don't count - but if they actually bothered they could actually make a change - the numbers of eligible voters who don't vote outnumber a single faction of voters.
If they actually voted, even if it's spread out across different candidates who don't win, the Two Parties might change what they do so they go back to &gt;97\%.As it is, why should the Two Parties change the way they do stuff when they get nearly 100\% of the votes?
That'll be a crazy thing to do right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612322</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To bad we don't look back at the copyright background of Walt Disney and his pioneering recycling of his copyrighted materials.....<br>Not all of this is to be blamed on todays RIAA and other corporate controls. They have just learned from the past and applied it to today's<br>mind set of perpetuity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To bad we do n't look back at the copyright background of Walt Disney and his pioneering recycling of his copyrighted materials.....Not all of this is to be blamed on todays RIAA and other corporate controls .
They have just learned from the past and applied it to today'smind set of perpetuity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To bad we don't look back at the copyright background of Walt Disney and his pioneering recycling of his copyrighted materials.....Not all of this is to be blamed on todays RIAA and other corporate controls.
They have just learned from the past and applied it to today'smind set of perpetuity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30615792</id>
	<title>Re:Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>Geekbot</author>
	<datestamp>1230800580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is an excellent argument to industry on why they need to shorten copyright terms. There is good money to be made in producing works that are outside copyright. This might not mean that everything out there is going to be printed, but there would be a financial incentive for quality works to be printed.</p><p>I actually think that chains like Walmart and Target, or Amazon even moreso, should be leading the campaign. Think of all the money the distribution chains could make from pushing their own copies of public domain works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is an excellent argument to industry on why they need to shorten copyright terms .
There is good money to be made in producing works that are outside copyright .
This might not mean that everything out there is going to be printed , but there would be a financial incentive for quality works to be printed.I actually think that chains like Walmart and Target , or Amazon even moreso , should be leading the campaign .
Think of all the money the distribution chains could make from pushing their own copies of public domain works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is an excellent argument to industry on why they need to shorten copyright terms.
There is good money to be made in producing works that are outside copyright.
This might not mean that everything out there is going to be printed, but there would be a financial incentive for quality works to be printed.I actually think that chains like Walmart and Target, or Amazon even moreso, should be leading the campaign.
Think of all the money the distribution chains could make from pushing their own copies of public domain works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30615828</id>
	<title>Re:What should have happened</title>
	<author>serutan</author>
	<datestamp>1230801000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3) All changes to the lengths of copyrights shall apply only to materials created after the enactment of the law.</p><p>The copyright framework that existed when Walt created Mickey was sufficient to motivate him to do his creative work. He had the choice to withhold his work until copyright law was more to his liking, or to publish it under current law. Walt made his decision freely, and the law under which he operated was a contract between Walt and the public. The public agreed not to infringe on his work for a given time, and Walt agreed to relinquish his rights at the end of that time.</p><p>When Congress comes in and changes these terms, it undermines the whole foundation of contracts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) All changes to the lengths of copyrights shall apply only to materials created after the enactment of the law.The copyright framework that existed when Walt created Mickey was sufficient to motivate him to do his creative work .
He had the choice to withhold his work until copyright law was more to his liking , or to publish it under current law .
Walt made his decision freely , and the law under which he operated was a contract between Walt and the public .
The public agreed not to infringe on his work for a given time , and Walt agreed to relinquish his rights at the end of that time.When Congress comes in and changes these terms , it undermines the whole foundation of contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) All changes to the lengths of copyrights shall apply only to materials created after the enactment of the law.The copyright framework that existed when Walt created Mickey was sufficient to motivate him to do his creative work.
He had the choice to withhold his work until copyright law was more to his liking, or to publish it under current law.
Walt made his decision freely, and the law under which he operated was a contract between Walt and the public.
The public agreed not to infringe on his work for a given time, and Walt agreed to relinquish his rights at the end of that time.When Congress comes in and changes these terms, it undermines the whole foundation of contracts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612112</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's back when publishing was <i>hard</i>, and it took that long to get a decent return out of the city where you published.  These days, with a global audience to buy your book, a copyright term of a single year would be more reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's back when publishing was hard , and it took that long to get a decent return out of the city where you published .
These days , with a global audience to buy your book , a copyright term of a single year would be more reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's back when publishing was hard, and it took that long to get a decent return out of the city where you published.
These days, with a global audience to buy your book, a copyright term of a single year would be more reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612470</id>
	<title>Re:Berne Convention</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262282520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.</p></div><p>One condition of joining the World Trade Organization is joining the Berne Convention, which appears to ban countries from requiring a renewal or any other formality from a copyright owner. Reintroducing copyright renewal might require the United States to withdraw from the WTO.</p></div><p>That's even more of a reason to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.One condition of joining the World Trade Organization is joining the Berne Convention , which appears to ban countries from requiring a renewal or any other formality from a copyright owner .
Reintroducing copyright renewal might require the United States to withdraw from the WTO.That 's even more of a reason to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.One condition of joining the World Trade Organization is joining the Berne Convention, which appears to ban countries from requiring a renewal or any other formality from a copyright owner.
Reintroducing copyright renewal might require the United States to withdraw from the WTO.That's even more of a reason to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611366</id>
	<title>Re:Immoral is what it is</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1262266680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Any idea when the latest copyright law/extensions were voted in and who voted for what? I would like to see if anyone I can make a vote for/against was part of them.</p></div></blockquote><p>It received broad bipartisan support in both houses of Congress.  So you can vote against any incumbents and stand a good chance of voting against someone who voted for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any idea when the latest copyright law/extensions were voted in and who voted for what ?
I would like to see if anyone I can make a vote for/against was part of them.It received broad bipartisan support in both houses of Congress .
So you can vote against any incumbents and stand a good chance of voting against someone who voted for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any idea when the latest copyright law/extensions were voted in and who voted for what?
I would like to see if anyone I can make a vote for/against was part of them.It received broad bipartisan support in both houses of Congress.
So you can vote against any incumbents and stand a good chance of voting against someone who voted for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30617058</id>
	<title>Re:Greedy note aside</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1230812580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stuff you can charge 200\% over the cost of production is even more interesting.  As long as most of the world doesn't have access to high-speed Internet connections or have the knowledge to make use of them distribution is going to be where the big bucks are.</p></div><p>The Folio Society does exactly what you are describing. They sell extremely high quality bound and (often originally) illustrated, often public domain works for vast sums. Doesn't seem to be the most popular or successful business model in the world, but it pays for a few people's food I bet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stuff you can charge 200 \ % over the cost of production is even more interesting .
As long as most of the world does n't have access to high-speed Internet connections or have the knowledge to make use of them distribution is going to be where the big bucks are.The Folio Society does exactly what you are describing .
They sell extremely high quality bound and ( often originally ) illustrated , often public domain works for vast sums .
Does n't seem to be the most popular or successful business model in the world , but it pays for a few people 's food I bet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stuff you can charge 200\% over the cost of production is even more interesting.
As long as most of the world doesn't have access to high-speed Internet connections or have the knowledge to make use of them distribution is going to be where the big bucks are.The Folio Society does exactly what you are describing.
They sell extremely high quality bound and (often originally) illustrated, often public domain works for vast sums.
Doesn't seem to be the most popular or successful business model in the world, but it pays for a few people's food I bet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610796</id>
	<title>Help! Slashdot is trapped</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262261160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/21/2352241/Alternative-2009-Copyright-Expirations" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">in an alternate universe!</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>in an alternate universe !
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in an alternate universe!
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610728</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262260620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to treat them as if they have entered the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to treat them as if they have entered the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to treat them as if they have entered the public domain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610886</id>
	<title>What should have happened</title>
	<author>voss</author>
	<datestamp>1262262180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright extension- ok BUT</p><p>1) Copyright extension renewal required. If you or your heirs dont care enough about your copyright to file paperwork and send in a check to cover the costs<br>of copyright preservation then you dont get one.</p><p>2) All copyrights from this point on come with a set date of copyright expiration at filing that cannot be lengthened beyond that date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright extension- ok BUT1 ) Copyright extension renewal required .
If you or your heirs dont care enough about your copyright to file paperwork and send in a check to cover the costsof copyright preservation then you dont get one.2 ) All copyrights from this point on come with a set date of copyright expiration at filing that can not be lengthened beyond that date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright extension- ok BUT1) Copyright extension renewal required.
If you or your heirs dont care enough about your copyright to file paperwork and send in a check to cover the costsof copyright preservation then you dont get one.2) All copyrights from this point on come with a set date of copyright expiration at filing that cannot be lengthened beyond that date.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611558</id>
	<title>Re:Bring back copyright renewal</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1262268600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the plus side, there were quite a few <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated\_Artists\_Productions#List\_of\_Warner\_Bros.\_Cartoons\_sold\_to\_a.a.p." title="wikipedia.org">Warner Brothers cartoons</a> [wikipedia.org] from the 1930s and 1940s that have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated\_Artists\_Productions#Public\_domain" title="wikipedia.org">entered the public domain</a> [wikipedia.org] as a result of Associated Artists Productions (which held the copyright at one point) failing to renew the copyright registration.</p><p>Note also that Warner Brothers is still selling DVDs with these cartoons (among others), so it's not like public domain automatically equals no profits for anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the plus side , there were quite a few Warner Brothers cartoons [ wikipedia.org ] from the 1930s and 1940s that have entered the public domain [ wikipedia.org ] as a result of Associated Artists Productions ( which held the copyright at one point ) failing to renew the copyright registration.Note also that Warner Brothers is still selling DVDs with these cartoons ( among others ) , so it 's not like public domain automatically equals no profits for anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the plus side, there were quite a few Warner Brothers cartoons [wikipedia.org] from the 1930s and 1940s that have entered the public domain [wikipedia.org] as a result of Associated Artists Productions (which held the copyright at one point) failing to renew the copyright registration.Note also that Warner Brothers is still selling DVDs with these cartoons (among others), so it's not like public domain automatically equals no profits for anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611198</id>
	<title>Re:Offensive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262265180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should be marked as "Funny", not "Offtopic". Are people REALLY that slow on the uptake of new memes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be marked as " Funny " , not " Offtopic " .
Are people REALLY that slow on the uptake of new memes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should be marked as "Funny", not "Offtopic".
Are people REALLY that slow on the uptake of new memes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826</id>
	<title>Bring back copyright renewal</title>
	<author>Andorin</author>
	<datestamp>1262261580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Copyright Act of 1976 did away with the "x years, with an additional x years on renewal" clause of copyright law; nowadays you just have one option, which is the length of the copyright term. Allowing authors and artists to renew their copyrights if they so choose keeps commercially viable works protected (which is arguably good), as it will be worth it to pay the fee to renew the copyright, but it <i>also</i> lets works that <i>aren't</i> commercially viable (and in many cases, not even commercially available) fall into the public domain much sooner. Since copyright encompasses <i>all</i> works, not simply those that the entertainment industry promotes and sells and makes huge profits from, it needs a sort of balance and the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.<br>
<br>
I mean, there are lots of creative works out there that are still under copyright, but because there's no central registry of copyright holders (which is another advantage that copyright renewal could bring, as it would require registration), it's difficult, expensive, or just plain impossible to find out who the rights holders are. These are works that are decades old and haven't brought in any profit in years and years- and yet it's still illegal to use them because of copyright law.<br>
<br>
Thanks a lot, Mickey.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Copyright Act of 1976 did away with the " x years , with an additional x years on renewal " clause of copyright law ; nowadays you just have one option , which is the length of the copyright term .
Allowing authors and artists to renew their copyrights if they so choose keeps commercially viable works protected ( which is arguably good ) , as it will be worth it to pay the fee to renew the copyright , but it also lets works that are n't commercially viable ( and in many cases , not even commercially available ) fall into the public domain much sooner .
Since copyright encompasses all works , not simply those that the entertainment industry promotes and sells and makes huge profits from , it needs a sort of balance and the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path .
I mean , there are lots of creative works out there that are still under copyright , but because there 's no central registry of copyright holders ( which is another advantage that copyright renewal could bring , as it would require registration ) , it 's difficult , expensive , or just plain impossible to find out who the rights holders are .
These are works that are decades old and have n't brought in any profit in years and years- and yet it 's still illegal to use them because of copyright law .
Thanks a lot , Mickey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Copyright Act of 1976 did away with the "x years, with an additional x years on renewal" clause of copyright law; nowadays you just have one option, which is the length of the copyright term.
Allowing authors and artists to renew their copyrights if they so choose keeps commercially viable works protected (which is arguably good), as it will be worth it to pay the fee to renew the copyright, but it also lets works that aren't commercially viable (and in many cases, not even commercially available) fall into the public domain much sooner.
Since copyright encompasses all works, not simply those that the entertainment industry promotes and sells and makes huge profits from, it needs a sort of balance and the return of copyright renewal could be a step along that path.
I mean, there are lots of creative works out there that are still under copyright, but because there's no central registry of copyright holders (which is another advantage that copyright renewal could bring, as it would require registration), it's difficult, expensive, or just plain impossible to find out who the rights holders are.
These are works that are decades old and haven't brought in any profit in years and years- and yet it's still illegal to use them because of copyright law.
Thanks a lot, Mickey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612088</id>
	<title>Calder v Bull, 1798</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1262275920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Fixed that.<br>"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."</i> </p><p>This is the classic exposition of what "ex post facto" means in in America law and it has held for 212 years.</p><p><i>I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive. In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws, and retrospective laws. Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited. Every law that takes away, or impairs, rights vested, agreeably to existing laws, is retrospective, and is generally unjust; and may be oppressive; and it is a good general rule, that a law should have no retrospect: but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community, and also of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement; as statutes of oblivion, or of pardon.</i></p><p><i>The expressions 'ex post facto laws,' are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors. The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done. His opinion is confirmed by his successor, Mr. Wooddeson; and by the author of the Federalist, who I esteem superior to both, for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principles of Government.</i> <a href="http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/calder.htm" title="michaelariens.com">Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798)</a> [michaelariens.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixed that .
" No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed .
" This is the classic exposition of what " ex post facto " means in in America law and it has held for 212 years.I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws , within the words and the intent of the prohibition .
1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law , and which was innocent when done , criminal ; and punishes such action .
2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime , or makes it greater than it was , when committed .
3rd. Every law that changes the punishment , and inflicts a greater punishment , than the law annexed to the crime , when committed .
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence , and receives less , or different , testimony , than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence , in order to convict the offender .
All these , and similar laws , are manifestly unjust and oppressive .
In my opinion , the true distinction is between ex post facto laws , and retrospective laws .
Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective ; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law : The former , only , are prohibited .
Every law that takes away , or impairs , rights vested , agreeably to existing laws , is retrospective , and is generally unjust ; and may be oppressive ; and it is a good general rule , that a law should have no retrospect : but there are cases in which laws may justly , and for the benefit of the community , and also of individuals , relate to a time antecedent to their commencement ; as statutes of oblivion , or of pardon.The expressions 'ex post facto laws, ' are technical , they had been in use long before the Revolution , and had acquired an appropriate meaning , by Legislators , Lawyers , and Authors .
The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone , in his commentaries , considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done .
His opinion is confirmed by his successor , Mr. Wooddeson ; and by the author of the Federalist , who I esteem superior to both , for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principles of Government .
Calder v. Bull , 3 Dall .
386 ( 1798 ) [ michaelariens.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixed that.
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
" This is the classic exposition of what "ex post facto" means in in America law and it has held for 212 years.I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition.
1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.
All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive.
In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws, and retrospective laws.
Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited.
Every law that takes away, or impairs, rights vested, agreeably to existing laws, is retrospective, and is generally unjust; and may be oppressive; and it is a good general rule, that a law should have no retrospect: but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community, and also of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement; as statutes of oblivion, or of pardon.The expressions 'ex post facto laws,' are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors.
The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done.
His opinion is confirmed by his successor, Mr. Wooddeson; and by the author of the Federalist, who I esteem superior to both, for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principles of Government.
Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall.
386 (1798) [michaelariens.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610786</id>
	<title>What are you talking about?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262261040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything TFA mentions is in the public domain! It's all available via bittorrent!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything TFA mentions is in the public domain !
It 's all available via bittorrent !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything TFA mentions is in the public domain!
It's all available via bittorrent!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611314</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262266140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if you write a book that's 30 years ahead of its time, you don't deserve to profit off it when popular culture finally discovers it?  That doesn't sound fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you write a book that 's 30 years ahead of its time , you do n't deserve to profit off it when popular culture finally discovers it ?
That does n't sound fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you write a book that's 30 years ahead of its time, you don't deserve to profit off it when popular culture finally discovers it?
That doesn't sound fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611482</id>
	<title>Re:Bring back copyright renewal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262267940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make copyright require registration again. It could be painless and free, as in "send a copy of your work, including source code (the whole point of copyright is building on others, and you can't build upon a closed binary) to the copyright office online and you're done in 2 minutes". Copyright by default has the huge problem that orphan works are unusable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make copyright require registration again .
It could be painless and free , as in " send a copy of your work , including source code ( the whole point of copyright is building on others , and you ca n't build upon a closed binary ) to the copyright office online and you 're done in 2 minutes " .
Copyright by default has the huge problem that orphan works are unusable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make copyright require registration again.
It could be painless and free, as in "send a copy of your work, including source code (the whole point of copyright is building on others, and you can't build upon a closed binary) to the copyright office online and you're done in 2 minutes".
Copyright by default has the huge problem that orphan works are unusable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612136</id>
	<title>Re:Offensive</title>
	<author>geekprime</author>
	<datestamp>1262276820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a male who fully supports the feminist view, How about you correct the oversight and list them for our education.
<br> <br>
Please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a male who fully supports the feminist view , How about you correct the oversight and list them for our education .
Please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a male who fully supports the feminist view, How about you correct the oversight and list them for our education.
Please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611490</id>
	<title>Re:Worded this way....</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1262268060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not about being able to merely watch a copyrighted work it is though about making a derivative work.  If I was to release something that was an exact or close to exact copy of an existing work then that work would be just as exciting / popular as mine, that is not what I want it is my own name to be up in lights.  Complaining that this copyright is just about watching something that someone else made and not giving them some kind of compensation or recognition is not the argument it is though whether or not we can take portions of it and derive it to our own.  This is what makes the difference between something someone else does and what we do since I can make a frame by frame copy of a work and release it to the public but since the original is public they can go behind my back and watch that one for free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not about being able to merely watch a copyrighted work it is though about making a derivative work .
If I was to release something that was an exact or close to exact copy of an existing work then that work would be just as exciting / popular as mine , that is not what I want it is my own name to be up in lights .
Complaining that this copyright is just about watching something that someone else made and not giving them some kind of compensation or recognition is not the argument it is though whether or not we can take portions of it and derive it to our own .
This is what makes the difference between something someone else does and what we do since I can make a frame by frame copy of a work and release it to the public but since the original is public they can go behind my back and watch that one for free ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not about being able to merely watch a copyrighted work it is though about making a derivative work.
If I was to release something that was an exact or close to exact copy of an existing work then that work would be just as exciting / popular as mine, that is not what I want it is my own name to be up in lights.
Complaining that this copyright is just about watching something that someone else made and not giving them some kind of compensation or recognition is not the argument it is though whether or not we can take portions of it and derive it to our own.
This is what makes the difference between something someone else does and what we do since I can make a frame by frame copy of a work and release it to the public but since the original is public they can go behind my back and watch that one for free ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612330</id>
	<title>Re:Steamboat Willie Event Horizon</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1262279820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain.</i> </p><p>Steamboat Willie is eight minutes of silent era sight gags with a synchronized audio track.</p><p>Nitrate stock.</p><p>Phonographic disk with mechanical synchronization. That's a problem for MoMA and The Library of Congress.</p><p>Entry into the public domain doesn't mean you have legal or physical access to primary sources.</p><p>It doesn't fund conservation. Restoration.</p><p>The Disney archives remain intact not only because the studio values its history - and not only because it uses these resources to recruit and train new talent.</p><p>The archives remain intact because they are self-supporting. Disney's shorts, features and television productions still have commercial value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain .
Steamboat Willie is eight minutes of silent era sight gags with a synchronized audio track.Nitrate stock.Phonographic disk with mechanical synchronization .
That 's a problem for MoMA and The Library of Congress.Entry into the public domain does n't mean you have legal or physical access to primary sources.It does n't fund conservation .
Restoration.The Disney archives remain intact not only because the studio values its history - and not only because it uses these resources to recruit and train new talent.The archives remain intact because they are self-supporting .
Disney 's shorts , features and television productions still have commercial value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain.
Steamboat Willie is eight minutes of silent era sight gags with a synchronized audio track.Nitrate stock.Phonographic disk with mechanical synchronization.
That's a problem for MoMA and The Library of Congress.Entry into the public domain doesn't mean you have legal or physical access to primary sources.It doesn't fund conservation.
Restoration.The Disney archives remain intact not only because the studio values its history - and not only because it uses these resources to recruit and train new talent.The archives remain intact because they are self-supporting.
Disney's shorts, features and television productions still have commercial value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611052</id>
	<title>A book my great-great-grandmother wrote</title>
	<author>chrisgeleven</author>
	<datestamp>1262263860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My great-great grandmother wrote a book in the late 1960s just before she died. It is long ago out of print, but we luckily have a copy thanks to someone who had a used copy for sale on Amazon.com and our luck of happening to look for it right when it was for sale.</p><p>I would love to make a PDF copy and put it up on my genealogy site as a free download, however from my reading of copyright laws it appears it is still under copyright. No one knows who is the owner of the copyright is at this point, we have no idea if the publisher is still around, and I doubt it sold more than a few hundred copies back when it was released in the first place. No way it would make any money at this point even if it came back into print. In short, the best place for this book is the public domain.</p><p>A perfect example of what a smartly written copyright law could do. This book should have long ago been in the public domain and even if it was copyrighted thanks to a renewal, there should be clear information on who the owner is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My great-great grandmother wrote a book in the late 1960s just before she died .
It is long ago out of print , but we luckily have a copy thanks to someone who had a used copy for sale on Amazon.com and our luck of happening to look for it right when it was for sale.I would love to make a PDF copy and put it up on my genealogy site as a free download , however from my reading of copyright laws it appears it is still under copyright .
No one knows who is the owner of the copyright is at this point , we have no idea if the publisher is still around , and I doubt it sold more than a few hundred copies back when it was released in the first place .
No way it would make any money at this point even if it came back into print .
In short , the best place for this book is the public domain.A perfect example of what a smartly written copyright law could do .
This book should have long ago been in the public domain and even if it was copyrighted thanks to a renewal , there should be clear information on who the owner is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My great-great grandmother wrote a book in the late 1960s just before she died.
It is long ago out of print, but we luckily have a copy thanks to someone who had a used copy for sale on Amazon.com and our luck of happening to look for it right when it was for sale.I would love to make a PDF copy and put it up on my genealogy site as a free download, however from my reading of copyright laws it appears it is still under copyright.
No one knows who is the owner of the copyright is at this point, we have no idea if the publisher is still around, and I doubt it sold more than a few hundred copies back when it was released in the first place.
No way it would make any money at this point even if it came back into print.
In short, the best place for this book is the public domain.A perfect example of what a smartly written copyright law could do.
This book should have long ago been in the public domain and even if it was copyrighted thanks to a renewal, there should be clear information on who the owner is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611708</id>
	<title>Re:14+14 years</title>
	<author>MagusSlurpy</author>
	<datestamp>1262270580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that no one got rich writing a book in 1789, or even 1889.  Hell, it had happened maybe a total of 100 times by <i>1989</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that no one got rich writing a book in 1789 , or even 1889 .
Hell , it had happened maybe a total of 100 times by 1989 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that no one got rich writing a book in 1789, or even 1889.
Hell, it had happened maybe a total of 100 times by 1989.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610956</id>
	<title>Re:Offensive</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262262780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything you mentioned before "I am offended" is completely irrelevant to both the article and any point you are trying to make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything you mentioned before " I am offended " is completely irrelevant to both the article and any point you are trying to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything you mentioned before "I am offended" is completely irrelevant to both the article and any point you are trying to make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30635044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30615828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30615766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30615792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30614118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30630800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30624774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30617058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30618042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_2255212_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30615828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30618042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30615792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30617058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30635044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611556
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30614118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30615766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30630800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30610826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30613514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30624774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30612590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_2255212.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_2255212.30611530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
