<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_02_1257224</id>
	<title>Novelist Blames Piracy On Open Source Culture</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262442900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>joeflies writes <i>"CNN published an article entitled '<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/01/ebook.piracy/index.html">Digital Piracy Hits the e-Book Industry</a>.' It quotes the following statement by novelist Sherman Alexie: 'With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership &mdash; of artistic ownership &mdash; goes away. It terrifies me.'"</i>
The article also points out a couple of interesting statistics for a "slumping" industry beset by piracy: "Sales for digital books in the second quarter of 2009 totaled almost $37 million. That's more than three times the total for the same three months in 2008, according to the Association of American Publishers," and "consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes. Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers."</htmltext>
<tokenext>joeflies writes " CNN published an article entitled 'Digital Piracy Hits the e-Book Industry .
' It quotes the following statement by novelist Sherman Alexie : 'With the open-source culture on the Internet , the idea of ownership    of artistic ownership    goes away .
It terrifies me .
' " The article also points out a couple of interesting statistics for a " slumping " industry beset by piracy : " Sales for digital books in the second quarter of 2009 totaled almost $ 37 million .
That 's more than three times the total for the same three months in 2008 , according to the Association of American Publishers , " and " consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes .
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>joeflies writes "CNN published an article entitled 'Digital Piracy Hits the e-Book Industry.
' It quotes the following statement by novelist Sherman Alexie: 'With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership — of artistic ownership — goes away.
It terrifies me.
'"
The article also points out a couple of interesting statistics for a "slumping" industry beset by piracy: "Sales for digital books in the second quarter of 2009 totaled almost $37 million.
That's more than three times the total for the same three months in 2008, according to the Association of American Publishers," and "consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes.
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30630378</id>
	<title>Ignorance at its best</title>
	<author>fly1ngtux</author>
	<datestamp>1262511540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership &mdash; of artistic ownership &mdash; goes away."

Somebody need to tell him what open source is and that the fact that source is open does not have anything to do with ownership! If the guy is hinting at people are getting accustomed to getting stuff for free, again he needs to be told that most of the stuff in open source is not really free in many ways. (Many major contributions are from people who are employed by various MNCs and they get paid, In most cases, your contributions need to be given back to the community -- another form of paying for what you use --, You use a software and make it a success -- You pay the owner by making him famous...). Besides, the owners of OSS have a different mind set. They get 'paid' in ways these proprietary guys can't understand. So, my dear friend, here is my correction "With the closed-source market culture on the Internet, which promotes piracy, the idea of ownership &mdash; of any ownership &mdash; goes away." You make it, open it for reasonable cost, then there will be people to buy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" With the open-source culture on the Internet , the idea of ownership    of artistic ownership    goes away .
" Somebody need to tell him what open source is and that the fact that source is open does not have anything to do with ownership !
If the guy is hinting at people are getting accustomed to getting stuff for free , again he needs to be told that most of the stuff in open source is not really free in many ways .
( Many major contributions are from people who are employed by various MNCs and they get paid , In most cases , your contributions need to be given back to the community -- another form of paying for what you use -- , You use a software and make it a success -- You pay the owner by making him famous... ) .
Besides , the owners of OSS have a different mind set .
They get 'paid ' in ways these proprietary guys ca n't understand .
So , my dear friend , here is my correction " With the closed-source market culture on the Internet , which promotes piracy , the idea of ownership    of any ownership    goes away .
" You make it , open it for reasonable cost , then there will be people to buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership — of artistic ownership — goes away.
"

Somebody need to tell him what open source is and that the fact that source is open does not have anything to do with ownership!
If the guy is hinting at people are getting accustomed to getting stuff for free, again he needs to be told that most of the stuff in open source is not really free in many ways.
(Many major contributions are from people who are employed by various MNCs and they get paid, In most cases, your contributions need to be given back to the community -- another form of paying for what you use --, You use a software and make it a success -- You pay the owner by making him famous...).
Besides, the owners of OSS have a different mind set.
They get 'paid' in ways these proprietary guys can't understand.
So, my dear friend, here is my correction "With the closed-source market culture on the Internet, which promotes piracy, the idea of ownership — of any ownership — goes away.
" You make it, open it for reasonable cost, then there will be people to buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627170</id>
	<title>Re:No shit. Duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262433900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like you live beyond your means. Stop borrowing money for stuff like that and you will feel like the powerful consumer again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you live beyond your means .
Stop borrowing money for stuff like that and you will feel like the powerful consumer again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you live beyond your means.
Stop borrowing money for stuff like that and you will feel like the powerful consumer again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625522</id>
	<title>your account on rapid has statistics</title>
	<author>Petkov</author>
	<datestamp>1262423460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and rapid does keep a count how many times a file has been d/led. It's obvious you dont have a rapid account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and rapid does keep a count how many times a file has been d/led .
It 's obvious you dont have a rapid account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and rapid does keep a count how many times a file has been d/led.
It's obvious you dont have a rapid account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623714</id>
	<title>Re:WTH is Sherman Alexie?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[WTH is Sherman Alexie?] and why do we care about his opinion? It's trivial to find an "expert" who will give you any opinion you want.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not sure he's being billed as an expert, but he's sold more books than you. He is therefore likely to have some opinions on book sales informed by experience. I may disagree with his conclusions about ebooks, but can see why his opinion on the subject might carry more weight than, say, yours.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ WTH is Sherman Alexie ?
] and why do we care about his opinion ?
It 's trivial to find an " expert " who will give you any opinion you want.Not sure he 's being billed as an expert , but he 's sold more books than you .
He is therefore likely to have some opinions on book sales informed by experience .
I may disagree with his conclusions about ebooks , but can see why his opinion on the subject might carry more weight than , say , yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[WTH is Sherman Alexie?
] and why do we care about his opinion?
It's trivial to find an "expert" who will give you any opinion you want.Not sure he's being billed as an expert, but he's sold more books than you.
He is therefore likely to have some opinions on book sales informed by experience.
I may disagree with his conclusions about ebooks, but can see why his opinion on the subject might carry more weight than, say, yours.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624222</id>
	<title>Re:If the formula is flawed the result means nothi</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262458920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>when in reality it is more likely that close to 100,000 people who would have never bought the book are now reading Dan Brown when they never would have otherwise.</p> </div><p>So, in summary, you're saying that piracy is a very bad thing, and must be stopped at all costs?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when in reality it is more likely that close to 100,000 people who would have never bought the book are now reading Dan Brown when they never would have otherwise .
So , in summary , you 're saying that piracy is a very bad thing , and must be stopped at all costs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when in reality it is more likely that close to 100,000 people who would have never bought the book are now reading Dan Brown when they never would have otherwise.
So, in summary, you're saying that piracy is a very bad thing, and must be stopped at all costs?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625102</id>
	<title>Re:Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1262464320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right. Open-source is about collaboration and donation. Piracy is generally driven by apathy and occasionally greed. If you don't know the difference between the sharing of open material and theft of copyrighted material, you don't get a say on the influence of "open-source culture."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Open-source is about collaboration and donation .
Piracy is generally driven by apathy and occasionally greed .
If you do n't know the difference between the sharing of open material and theft of copyrighted material , you do n't get a say on the influence of " open-source culture .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Open-source is about collaboration and donation.
Piracy is generally driven by apathy and occasionally greed.
If you don't know the difference between the sharing of open material and theft of copyrighted material, you don't get a say on the influence of "open-source culture.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629816</id>
	<title>piracy, ha!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the movie industry claimed a 10.1\% increase in ticket sales this year.  making over $1.62 billion this year.  piracy has nothing to do with slumping sales on stuff that's willfully put on the internet, by the people who are bitching about piracy cutting into their bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the movie industry claimed a 10.1 \ % increase in ticket sales this year .
making over $ 1.62 billion this year .
piracy has nothing to do with slumping sales on stuff that 's willfully put on the internet , by the people who are bitching about piracy cutting into their bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the movie industry claimed a 10.1\% increase in ticket sales this year.
making over $1.62 billion this year.
piracy has nothing to do with slumping sales on stuff that's willfully put on the internet, by the people who are bitching about piracy cutting into their bottom line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624236</id>
	<title>A way towards equitability...</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1262458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have absolutely no problem paying good money to have copyrighted work in media that suit my needs. <br> <br>
My only objection is when some cretinous little parasite comes along and tries to tell me what I can or cannot do with those media. At least 95\% of the time those parasites have played little or no part in making the work good for "consumption", and they channel precious little of the revenue back to the artist.<br> <br>
I forsee a time when writers will offer their work online, bypassing the middle-man altogether, and I won't be sorry. Those marketroids will have to be replaced by aggregators of reviews in order to get the work to sell, but that isn't a bad thing, just different. Seems a simple and effective business model, which given the huge number of works (and customers) could be made viable. Publishing houses might be relegated to printing and binding comparatively limited numbers of copies of the work as required, which should also be viable given that sufficient negative reviews would restrict the work to a digital-only format. They won't take the money they did before, but the redistribution of revenue favours the artist and the consumer, which is fairer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have absolutely no problem paying good money to have copyrighted work in media that suit my needs .
My only objection is when some cretinous little parasite comes along and tries to tell me what I can or can not do with those media .
At least 95 \ % of the time those parasites have played little or no part in making the work good for " consumption " , and they channel precious little of the revenue back to the artist .
I forsee a time when writers will offer their work online , bypassing the middle-man altogether , and I wo n't be sorry .
Those marketroids will have to be replaced by aggregators of reviews in order to get the work to sell , but that is n't a bad thing , just different .
Seems a simple and effective business model , which given the huge number of works ( and customers ) could be made viable .
Publishing houses might be relegated to printing and binding comparatively limited numbers of copies of the work as required , which should also be viable given that sufficient negative reviews would restrict the work to a digital-only format .
They wo n't take the money they did before , but the redistribution of revenue favours the artist and the consumer , which is fairer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have absolutely no problem paying good money to have copyrighted work in media that suit my needs.
My only objection is when some cretinous little parasite comes along and tries to tell me what I can or cannot do with those media.
At least 95\% of the time those parasites have played little or no part in making the work good for "consumption", and they channel precious little of the revenue back to the artist.
I forsee a time when writers will offer their work online, bypassing the middle-man altogether, and I won't be sorry.
Those marketroids will have to be replaced by aggregators of reviews in order to get the work to sell, but that isn't a bad thing, just different.
Seems a simple and effective business model, which given the huge number of works (and customers) could be made viable.
Publishing houses might be relegated to printing and binding comparatively limited numbers of copies of the work as required, which should also be viable given that sufficient negative reviews would restrict the work to a digital-only format.
They won't take the money they did before, but the redistribution of revenue favours the artist and the consumer, which is fairer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622690</id>
	<title>Re:If the formula is flawed the result means nothi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This person makes the very false assumption that, when someone tells you and another friend that they read this great book for free but didn't care enough to actually buy it because they expect you to, that you will actually buy it rather than also downloading it because you don't consider yourself inferior to that person. Even though both of you may have otherwise bought the book had you not heard about your friend getting it for free.</p><p>No, 100,000 downloads doesn't necessarily equal 100,000 lost sales. It's more likely to mean 300,000 people who expect the rest of the world to support their interests financially because they can't be assed, and they have a superiority complex. That's 300,000 people who have no moral issue with getting something for nothing while everyone else has to pay. And worst of all, it's 300,000 people who are unfortunately allowed to vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This person makes the very false assumption that , when someone tells you and another friend that they read this great book for free but did n't care enough to actually buy it because they expect you to , that you will actually buy it rather than also downloading it because you do n't consider yourself inferior to that person .
Even though both of you may have otherwise bought the book had you not heard about your friend getting it for free.No , 100,000 downloads does n't necessarily equal 100,000 lost sales .
It 's more likely to mean 300,000 people who expect the rest of the world to support their interests financially because they ca n't be assed , and they have a superiority complex .
That 's 300,000 people who have no moral issue with getting something for nothing while everyone else has to pay .
And worst of all , it 's 300,000 people who are unfortunately allowed to vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This person makes the very false assumption that, when someone tells you and another friend that they read this great book for free but didn't care enough to actually buy it because they expect you to, that you will actually buy it rather than also downloading it because you don't consider yourself inferior to that person.
Even though both of you may have otherwise bought the book had you not heard about your friend getting it for free.No, 100,000 downloads doesn't necessarily equal 100,000 lost sales.
It's more likely to mean 300,000 people who expect the rest of the world to support their interests financially because they can't be assed, and they have a superiority complex.
That's 300,000 people who have no moral issue with getting something for nothing while everyone else has to pay.
And worst of all, it's 300,000 people who are unfortunately allowed to vote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623098</id>
	<title>Sherman Alexie, meet Eric Flint</title>
	<author>sgtrock</author>
	<datestamp>1262453220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the <a href="http://www.baen.com/library/" title="baen.com">Baen Free Library</a> [baen.com].</p><p>'Nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the Baen Free Library [ baen.com ] .
'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the Baen Free Library [baen.com].
'Nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623692</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1262456340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Haven't books really been open source all along anyway? They're not always copyright free, but anyone can read them.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The software terminology doesn't really map well onto books. With a book, here are some of the questions you can ask:
</p><ol>
<li> Is it in an editable format?</li>
<li> Is it in an openly defined, legally unencumbered format?</li>
<li> Can you sell it when you're done reading it?</li>
<li> Can you loan it to a friend?</li>
<li> Can you freely copy and redistribute it on a noncommercial basis?</li>
<li> Can you freely copy and redistribute it on a commercial basis?</li>
</ol><p>
For a Kindle e-book, the answer to all six questions is no. For a typical paper book that's still in copyright, the answers are no, yes, yes, yes, no, no. For wikipedia, the answers are all yes.
</p><p>
The word "source" doesn't have any useful meaning if you're talking about the Gutenberg Bible. It does have a useful meaning if you're talking about Wikipedia: the source code is the mediawiki markup, svg files for illustrations, etc.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't books really been open source all along anyway ?
They 're not always copyright free , but anyone can read them .
The software terminology does n't really map well onto books .
With a book , here are some of the questions you can ask : Is it in an editable format ?
Is it in an openly defined , legally unencumbered format ?
Can you sell it when you 're done reading it ?
Can you loan it to a friend ?
Can you freely copy and redistribute it on a noncommercial basis ?
Can you freely copy and redistribute it on a commercial basis ?
For a Kindle e-book , the answer to all six questions is no .
For a typical paper book that 's still in copyright , the answers are no , yes , yes , yes , no , no .
For wikipedia , the answers are all yes .
The word " source " does n't have any useful meaning if you 're talking about the Gutenberg Bible .
It does have a useful meaning if you 're talking about Wikipedia : the source code is the mediawiki markup , svg files for illustrations , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't books really been open source all along anyway?
They're not always copyright free, but anyone can read them.
The software terminology doesn't really map well onto books.
With a book, here are some of the questions you can ask:

 Is it in an editable format?
Is it in an openly defined, legally unencumbered format?
Can you sell it when you're done reading it?
Can you loan it to a friend?
Can you freely copy and redistribute it on a noncommercial basis?
Can you freely copy and redistribute it on a commercial basis?
For a Kindle e-book, the answer to all six questions is no.
For a typical paper book that's still in copyright, the answers are no, yes, yes, yes, no, no.
For wikipedia, the answers are all yes.
The word "source" doesn't have any useful meaning if you're talking about the Gutenberg Bible.
It does have a useful meaning if you're talking about Wikipedia: the source code is the mediawiki markup, svg files for illustrations, etc.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623252</id>
	<title>American Indian irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find Alexie's comments sort of ironic, given the historical take of land ownership by Native Americans vs the invading Europeans.  (Sherman Alexie's writings focus around the lifestyle of modern Indians in the Pacific Northwest.  Great stuff, by the way)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find Alexie 's comments sort of ironic , given the historical take of land ownership by Native Americans vs the invading Europeans .
( Sherman Alexie 's writings focus around the lifestyle of modern Indians in the Pacific Northwest .
Great stuff , by the way )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find Alexie's comments sort of ironic, given the historical take of land ownership by Native Americans vs the invading Europeans.
(Sherman Alexie's writings focus around the lifestyle of modern Indians in the Pacific Northwest.
Great stuff, by the way)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623554</id>
	<title>An author who needs education</title>
	<author>XB-70</author>
	<datestamp>1262455680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sherman Alexie is funny, witty and well-spoken. I have read a smattering of his works and find him to be erudite and informative. In fact, I would never have even given a second thought about the guy unless I had not run across him on the Dec 1st, 2009 Colbert Report. His remark about open source being such a problem floored me for the depth and breadth of it's stupidity. Because his statement was so stupid, rather than make an equally stupid remark in return, I have the following challenge:
<p>Sherman, why don't you go to a Linux convention, a LUG group or any other open source forum. Bring a bunch of your books and have an open discussion with the people who are 'stealing' your works. If you were to educate yourself about us as we do about you, I think you'd find a whole new audience. Can I steal a bogus line from a large software vendor? "Get the facts!"... and maybe sell some books!
</p><p>One other thing that I'd like to point out is that the ubiquity of the products of that same large software vendor is directly related to piracy. If so many copies of Windows and Office had not been pirated early on, there would not have been the nearly universal adoption of the product as a 'standard'.
</p><p>In short, Sherman, a little piracy will spread the word about your works far faster than putting your head in the sand and using up trees. Speaking of which, do you mind terribly if I loan my friends a hard cover copy of one of your works? If they enjoy them, they might buy something else and spread the word even further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sherman Alexie is funny , witty and well-spoken .
I have read a smattering of his works and find him to be erudite and informative .
In fact , I would never have even given a second thought about the guy unless I had not run across him on the Dec 1st , 2009 Colbert Report .
His remark about open source being such a problem floored me for the depth and breadth of it 's stupidity .
Because his statement was so stupid , rather than make an equally stupid remark in return , I have the following challenge : Sherman , why do n't you go to a Linux convention , a LUG group or any other open source forum .
Bring a bunch of your books and have an open discussion with the people who are 'stealing ' your works .
If you were to educate yourself about us as we do about you , I think you 'd find a whole new audience .
Can I steal a bogus line from a large software vendor ?
" Get the facts ! " .. .
and maybe sell some books !
One other thing that I 'd like to point out is that the ubiquity of the products of that same large software vendor is directly related to piracy .
If so many copies of Windows and Office had not been pirated early on , there would not have been the nearly universal adoption of the product as a 'standard' .
In short , Sherman , a little piracy will spread the word about your works far faster than putting your head in the sand and using up trees .
Speaking of which , do you mind terribly if I loan my friends a hard cover copy of one of your works ?
If they enjoy them , they might buy something else and spread the word even further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sherman Alexie is funny, witty and well-spoken.
I have read a smattering of his works and find him to be erudite and informative.
In fact, I would never have even given a second thought about the guy unless I had not run across him on the Dec 1st, 2009 Colbert Report.
His remark about open source being such a problem floored me for the depth and breadth of it's stupidity.
Because his statement was so stupid, rather than make an equally stupid remark in return, I have the following challenge:
Sherman, why don't you go to a Linux convention, a LUG group or any other open source forum.
Bring a bunch of your books and have an open discussion with the people who are 'stealing' your works.
If you were to educate yourself about us as we do about you, I think you'd find a whole new audience.
Can I steal a bogus line from a large software vendor?
"Get the facts!"...
and maybe sell some books!
One other thing that I'd like to point out is that the ubiquity of the products of that same large software vendor is directly related to piracy.
If so many copies of Windows and Office had not been pirated early on, there would not have been the nearly universal adoption of the product as a 'standard'.
In short, Sherman, a little piracy will spread the word about your works far faster than putting your head in the sand and using up trees.
Speaking of which, do you mind terribly if I loan my friends a hard cover copy of one of your works?
If they enjoy them, they might buy something else and spread the word even further.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150</id>
	<title>BZZZZT WRONG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262446860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc. requires attribution, and even pirates don't bother removing credits. Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc .
requires attribution , and even pirates do n't bother removing credits .
Your 'artistic ownership ' goes nowhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc.
requires attribution, and even pirates don't bother removing credits.
Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622836</id>
	<title>If anything ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anything, the 'open source culture' is a welcome opposition to the 'I had the idea, it's all mine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... mine !' egoism that we experience now. I think, humanity made it this far this fast, because they shared their knowledge.<br>Most scientific knowledge was open to everyone to use and build on it formerly. Now people try to keep everything for themselves and hinder other people to use it by patenting ideas, processes. They even do it with stuff that is not even their work, but that some mathematician has invented like 100 years ago and gave everyone originally for free. Suddenly someone uses this stuff in some application and claims it as their invention. It's sickening me.<br>So yes, if the 'open source culture' is working against this, great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything , the 'open source culture ' is a welcome opposition to the 'I had the idea , it 's all mine ... mine !
' egoism that we experience now .
I think , humanity made it this far this fast , because they shared their knowledge.Most scientific knowledge was open to everyone to use and build on it formerly .
Now people try to keep everything for themselves and hinder other people to use it by patenting ideas , processes .
They even do it with stuff that is not even their work , but that some mathematician has invented like 100 years ago and gave everyone originally for free .
Suddenly someone uses this stuff in some application and claims it as their invention .
It 's sickening me.So yes , if the 'open source culture ' is working against this , great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anything, the 'open source culture' is a welcome opposition to the 'I had the idea, it's all mine ... mine !
' egoism that we experience now.
I think, humanity made it this far this fast, because they shared their knowledge.Most scientific knowledge was open to everyone to use and build on it formerly.
Now people try to keep everything for themselves and hinder other people to use it by patenting ideas, processes.
They even do it with stuff that is not even their work, but that some mathematician has invented like 100 years ago and gave everyone originally for free.
Suddenly someone uses this stuff in some application and claims it as their invention.
It's sickening me.So yes, if the 'open source culture' is working against this, great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622256</id>
	<title>Join us!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262447700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You will be assimilated.<br>Resistance is futile!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will be assimilated.Resistance is futile !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will be assimilated.Resistance is futile!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174</id>
	<title>When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262447040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's simple: don't offer your unfounded opinion.</p><p>Clearly people pirate books they wouldn't have bought... I know one kid who has like 4000 ebooks, he's probably read two of.  Also, making them "more" digitized doesn't matter.  When there's one digital copy, there's 10,000,000.  They are right about one thing, making them easier to buy (and part of easier means less copy protection) will mean they will sell more.</p><p>Just look how iTunes completely stopped selling anything when they started offering non-copy-protected books - oh wait, they didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple : do n't offer your unfounded opinion.Clearly people pirate books they would n't have bought... I know one kid who has like 4000 ebooks , he 's probably read two of .
Also , making them " more " digitized does n't matter .
When there 's one digital copy , there 's 10,000,000 .
They are right about one thing , making them easier to buy ( and part of easier means less copy protection ) will mean they will sell more.Just look how iTunes completely stopped selling anything when they started offering non-copy-protected books - oh wait , they did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple: don't offer your unfounded opinion.Clearly people pirate books they wouldn't have bought... I know one kid who has like 4000 ebooks, he's probably read two of.
Also, making them "more" digitized doesn't matter.
When there's one digital copy, there's 10,000,000.
They are right about one thing, making them easier to buy (and part of easier means less copy protection) will mean they will sell more.Just look how iTunes completely stopped selling anything when they started offering non-copy-protected books - oh wait, they didn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30626430</id>
	<title>from feather to printing press, to server-browser</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1262429040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 15th century monks, who wrote books by a pen, did not like an appearance of the printing press.</p><p>Printing press changed not only the way the books are produced but it changed the whole industry, it changed what kind of books were produced.</p><p>More than that, it changed the whole society, it caused decades of reformation wars. It produced a new civilization.</p><p>We are looking at about the same thing. The Internet is of about the same magnitude. Some will try to forbid it, try to control it, the same as happened to the printing press. But the world will be changed beyond recognition. It just takes time. Printing press was invented in 1440, but the reformation started only in 1517. And the reformation wars lasted more than 100 years after that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 15th century monks , who wrote books by a pen , did not like an appearance of the printing press.Printing press changed not only the way the books are produced but it changed the whole industry , it changed what kind of books were produced.More than that , it changed the whole society , it caused decades of reformation wars .
It produced a new civilization.We are looking at about the same thing .
The Internet is of about the same magnitude .
Some will try to forbid it , try to control it , the same as happened to the printing press .
But the world will be changed beyond recognition .
It just takes time .
Printing press was invented in 1440 , but the reformation started only in 1517 .
And the reformation wars lasted more than 100 years after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 15th century monks, who wrote books by a pen, did not like an appearance of the printing press.Printing press changed not only the way the books are produced but it changed the whole industry, it changed what kind of books were produced.More than that, it changed the whole society, it caused decades of reformation wars.
It produced a new civilization.We are looking at about the same thing.
The Internet is of about the same magnitude.
Some will try to forbid it, try to control it, the same as happened to the printing press.
But the world will be changed beyond recognition.
It just takes time.
Printing press was invented in 1440, but the reformation started only in 1517.
And the reformation wars lasted more than 100 years after that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627604</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262436780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this along the same lines as how Sherlock Holmes worked out? A story written in a periodical that people had to subscribe to?</p><p>http://www.strandmag.com/hist.htm</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When the first Sherlock Holmes short story &ndash;"A Scandal in Bohemia"- was published in the July 1891 issue of the Strand Magazine, circulation rose immediately.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p> However, within two years, the combination of Sherlock Holmes and the Strand had made Conan Doyle one of the most popular authors of the age. Fifty-six Holmes stories appeared in the magazine from 1891 to 1927, many of them illustrated by Sidney Paget&rsquo;s now famous drawings.</p></div><p>The only bad part of a serial is that if it's a single story, each "chapter" ends up being a cliffhanger to draw in the readers again. Which can get pretty irritating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this along the same lines as how Sherlock Holmes worked out ?
A story written in a periodical that people had to subscribe to ? http : //www.strandmag.com/hist.htmWhen the first Sherlock Holmes short story    " A Scandal in Bohemia " - was published in the July 1891 issue of the Strand Magazine , circulation rose immediately .
However , within two years , the combination of Sherlock Holmes and the Strand had made Conan Doyle one of the most popular authors of the age .
Fifty-six Holmes stories appeared in the magazine from 1891 to 1927 , many of them illustrated by Sidney Paget    s now famous drawings.The only bad part of a serial is that if it 's a single story , each " chapter " ends up being a cliffhanger to draw in the readers again .
Which can get pretty irritating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this along the same lines as how Sherlock Holmes worked out?
A story written in a periodical that people had to subscribe to?http://www.strandmag.com/hist.htmWhen the first Sherlock Holmes short story –"A Scandal in Bohemia"- was published in the July 1891 issue of the Strand Magazine, circulation rose immediately.
However, within two years, the combination of Sherlock Holmes and the Strand had made Conan Doyle one of the most popular authors of the age.
Fifty-six Holmes stories appeared in the magazine from 1891 to 1927, many of them illustrated by Sidney Paget’s now famous drawings.The only bad part of a serial is that if it's a single story, each "chapter" ends up being a cliffhanger to draw in the readers again.
Which can get pretty irritating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625212</id>
	<title>Usenet Was Here</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1262464860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello, the '80s are calling and want their news back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , the '80s are calling and want their news back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, the '80s are calling and want their news back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627432</id>
	<title>What is a "Sherman Alexie"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262435640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hadn't heard of the "author" before, and by time I wake up tomorrow morning, I'll have completely forgotten about the tedious prat.</p><p>Now THAT should terrify the poor thing a LOT more!</p><p>Anyhow "Sherman Alexie"?  "Alexie Sherman" sounds better...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had n't heard of the " author " before , and by time I wake up tomorrow morning , I 'll have completely forgotten about the tedious prat.Now THAT should terrify the poor thing a LOT more ! Anyhow " Sherman Alexie " ?
" Alexie Sherman " sounds better.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hadn't heard of the "author" before, and by time I wake up tomorrow morning, I'll have completely forgotten about the tedious prat.Now THAT should terrify the poor thing a LOT more!Anyhow "Sherman Alexie"?
"Alexie Sherman" sounds better...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623352</id>
	<title>Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Take the iPhone for example. The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference. The real difference is in the design - I.e. pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied. Yet another company can't just use that information without Apple's permission - I.e. they can't just go off an make their own iPhone. Is this "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity" bad?</p></div><p>Given the conditions you've laid out - yes.  If the materials for a new iPhone are no more expensive than those for a cheap generic - the difference in price is entirely due to the difference in once-off design costs - then why are we making the cheap generics?  It would be more efficient for us as a society to do the phone design once, and well, then to produce only copies of that well-designed phone.</p><p>We tolerate this inefficiency, caused by patent and copyright laws, because it encourages people to produce new phone designs, artistic works, etc.  The artificial scarcity that they introduce is bad - we just hope that it's outweighed by the good effects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the iPhone for example .
The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference .
The real difference is in the design - I.e .
pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied .
Yet another company ca n't just use that information without Apple 's permission - I.e .
they ca n't just go off an make their own iPhone .
Is this " taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity " bad ? Given the conditions you 've laid out - yes .
If the materials for a new iPhone are no more expensive than those for a cheap generic - the difference in price is entirely due to the difference in once-off design costs - then why are we making the cheap generics ?
It would be more efficient for us as a society to do the phone design once , and well , then to produce only copies of that well-designed phone.We tolerate this inefficiency , caused by patent and copyright laws , because it encourages people to produce new phone designs , artistic works , etc .
The artificial scarcity that they introduce is bad - we just hope that it 's outweighed by the good effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the iPhone for example.
The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference.
The real difference is in the design - I.e.
pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied.
Yet another company can't just use that information without Apple's permission - I.e.
they can't just go off an make their own iPhone.
Is this "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity" bad?Given the conditions you've laid out - yes.
If the materials for a new iPhone are no more expensive than those for a cheap generic - the difference in price is entirely due to the difference in once-off design costs - then why are we making the cheap generics?
It would be more efficient for us as a society to do the phone design once, and well, then to produce only copies of that well-designed phone.We tolerate this inefficiency, caused by patent and copyright laws, because it encourages people to produce new phone designs, artistic works, etc.
The artificial scarcity that they introduce is bad - we just hope that it's outweighed by the good effects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30631314</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1262529900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Piracy happens when sellers and buyers fail to agree on pricing. Greedy bastards ask too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Piracy happens when sellers and buyers fail to agree on pricing .
Greedy bastards ask too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piracy happens when sellers and buyers fail to agree on pricing.
Greedy bastards ask too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625974</id>
	<title>Re:No shit. Duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262426220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The consumer may feel ripped off when I charge $1000 for a logo. But when you spend hours of work that can't be used again or transferred to anyone else, it's just paying the bills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The consumer may feel ripped off when I charge $ 1000 for a logo .
But when you spend hours of work that ca n't be used again or transferred to anyone else , it 's just paying the bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The consumer may feel ripped off when I charge $1000 for a logo.
But when you spend hours of work that can't be used again or transferred to anyone else, it's just paying the bills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622678</id>
	<title>The idea went away? That idea never stuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's be honest here, how many people do you know that really had "that idea" of IP ownership? How many talk about "licensing" Windows and how many "buy" it? How many "license" a book and how many "buy" it?</p><p>And that set in with the open source movement? My dad, who can't tell a toaster from a netbook and would think of a medical condition hearing about "open sores", is the proud "owner" of a very extensive dead tree library. And it's his firm belief that he "owns" those books, the idea that these books don't belong to him never crossed his mind.</p><p>So let's be sensible here. The idea of intellectual property never made it into public conscience. And until recently that was very much in the interest of the same people that now bemoan it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be honest here , how many people do you know that really had " that idea " of IP ownership ?
How many talk about " licensing " Windows and how many " buy " it ?
How many " license " a book and how many " buy " it ? And that set in with the open source movement ?
My dad , who ca n't tell a toaster from a netbook and would think of a medical condition hearing about " open sores " , is the proud " owner " of a very extensive dead tree library .
And it 's his firm belief that he " owns " those books , the idea that these books do n't belong to him never crossed his mind.So let 's be sensible here .
The idea of intellectual property never made it into public conscience .
And until recently that was very much in the interest of the same people that now bemoan it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be honest here, how many people do you know that really had "that idea" of IP ownership?
How many talk about "licensing" Windows and how many "buy" it?
How many "license" a book and how many "buy" it?And that set in with the open source movement?
My dad, who can't tell a toaster from a netbook and would think of a medical condition hearing about "open sores", is the proud "owner" of a very extensive dead tree library.
And it's his firm belief that he "owns" those books, the idea that these books don't belong to him never crossed his mind.So let's be sensible here.
The idea of intellectual property never made it into public conscience.
And until recently that was very much in the interest of the same people that now bemoan it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625824</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262425200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fact #1 was not true in the 1700s when the first copyright laws were passed.  This made copyright a much more practical approach for dealing with the conflict between #2 and #3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact # 1 was not true in the 1700s when the first copyright laws were passed .
This made copyright a much more practical approach for dealing with the conflict between # 2 and # 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact #1 was not true in the 1700s when the first copyright laws were passed.
This made copyright a much more practical approach for dealing with the conflict between #2 and #3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622198</id>
	<title>Open Source</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1262447340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haven't books really been open source all along anyway? They're not always copyright free, but anyone can read them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't books really been open source all along anyway ?
They 're not always copyright free , but anyone can read them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't books really been open source all along anyway?
They're not always copyright free, but anyone can read them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623308</id>
	<title>You think?!</title>
	<author>jcrousedotcom</author>
	<datestamp>1262454420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Let's see, I buy books with Amazon's Kindle at the *Amazon* store.  I can buy real books at the book store, the drug store, the grocery store, the gas station (you'd be surprised), the garage sale, the library's old book sale, eBay, and of course Amazon (and other e-tailers) - and that by no means is an exhaustive list.<br> <br>

It stands to reason that the *availability* of other sources might has something to do with the amount of books a given customer buys at Amazon / physical vs. digital. Just sayin'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
Let 's see , I buy books with Amazon 's Kindle at the * Amazon * store .
I can buy real books at the book store , the drug store , the grocery store , the gas station ( you 'd be surprised ) , the garage sale , the library 's old book sale , eBay , and of course Amazon ( and other e-tailers ) - and that by no means is an exhaustive list .
It stands to reason that the * availability * of other sources might has something to do with the amount of books a given customer buys at Amazon / physical vs. digital. Just sayin '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
Let's see, I buy books with Amazon's Kindle at the *Amazon* store.
I can buy real books at the book store, the drug store, the grocery store, the gas station (you'd be surprised), the garage sale, the library's old book sale, eBay, and of course Amazon (and other e-tailers) - and that by no means is an exhaustive list.
It stands to reason that the *availability* of other sources might has something to do with the amount of books a given customer buys at Amazon / physical vs. digital. Just sayin'
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623270</id>
	<title>Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody has a right to profit off their creation. Be careful where you throw around the word "right." Rights are things we protect, but I don't think you mean we should protect the profits of any particular industries.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody has a right to profit off their creation .
Be careful where you throw around the word " right .
" Rights are things we protect , but I do n't think you mean we should protect the profits of any particular industries .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody has a right to profit off their creation.
Be careful where you throw around the word "right.
" Rights are things we protect, but I don't think you mean we should protect the profits of any particular industries.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624526</id>
	<title>More ebooks. Than paperbooks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers."<br>Well duh! That is because I can buy books from multiple sources, but kindle books only from Amazon. I buy more paperbooks than ebooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
" Well duh !
That is because I can buy books from multiple sources , but kindle books only from Amazon .
I buy more paperbooks than ebooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
"Well duh!
That is because I can buy books from multiple sources, but kindle books only from Amazon.
I buy more paperbooks than ebooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625008</id>
	<title>Not just Stephen King</title>
	<author>Firethorn</author>
	<datestamp>1262463780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some authors have even gone as far as to shrug off e-book technology altogether. J.K Rowling has thus far refused to make any of her Harry Potter books available digitally because of piracy fears and a desire to see readers experience her books in print.</p></div><p>While it's Rowling's option to try to <i>force</i> her readers to 'experience her books in print', I'd point out that our population is aging - the ability to 'create' a virtual large print edition is going to become more and more important.  Not to mention the space savings from not having loads of books, the resource savings of not printing them, all that.</p><p>I'll also state that her 'piracy fears' are actually <i>encouraging</i> piracy.  Most pirated e-books aren't cracked digital editions, they're scanned/typed in version from the dead-paper edition.  Thus, if you want Rowling's works in an electronic version, you're stuck pirating, much like how movies/music weren't legally available purely electronically.</p><p>If I remember right, book before last was available within about a half hour of being released in stores - an enterprising group of people typed and proof-read the book into an e-book version in that short of a period of time.  So NOT offering a electronic version did jack to prevent an illegal copy being available.</p><p>I've switched mostly to e-books - a lot of them from Baen.  They're doing fine with unrestricted e-books and outright giving a number of them away.</p><p>Guess what Rowling - not releasing your ebooks hasn't caused me to buy paper copies, it's make me simply not read your works.  I've stopped pirating as I aged.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some authors have even gone as far as to shrug off e-book technology altogether .
J.K Rowling has thus far refused to make any of her Harry Potter books available digitally because of piracy fears and a desire to see readers experience her books in print.While it 's Rowling 's option to try to force her readers to 'experience her books in print ' , I 'd point out that our population is aging - the ability to 'create ' a virtual large print edition is going to become more and more important .
Not to mention the space savings from not having loads of books , the resource savings of not printing them , all that.I 'll also state that her 'piracy fears ' are actually encouraging piracy .
Most pirated e-books are n't cracked digital editions , they 're scanned/typed in version from the dead-paper edition .
Thus , if you want Rowling 's works in an electronic version , you 're stuck pirating , much like how movies/music were n't legally available purely electronically.If I remember right , book before last was available within about a half hour of being released in stores - an enterprising group of people typed and proof-read the book into an e-book version in that short of a period of time .
So NOT offering a electronic version did jack to prevent an illegal copy being available.I 've switched mostly to e-books - a lot of them from Baen .
They 're doing fine with unrestricted e-books and outright giving a number of them away.Guess what Rowling - not releasing your ebooks has n't caused me to buy paper copies , it 's make me simply not read your works .
I 've stopped pirating as I aged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some authors have even gone as far as to shrug off e-book technology altogether.
J.K Rowling has thus far refused to make any of her Harry Potter books available digitally because of piracy fears and a desire to see readers experience her books in print.While it's Rowling's option to try to force her readers to 'experience her books in print', I'd point out that our population is aging - the ability to 'create' a virtual large print edition is going to become more and more important.
Not to mention the space savings from not having loads of books, the resource savings of not printing them, all that.I'll also state that her 'piracy fears' are actually encouraging piracy.
Most pirated e-books aren't cracked digital editions, they're scanned/typed in version from the dead-paper edition.
Thus, if you want Rowling's works in an electronic version, you're stuck pirating, much like how movies/music weren't legally available purely electronically.If I remember right, book before last was available within about a half hour of being released in stores - an enterprising group of people typed and proof-read the book into an e-book version in that short of a period of time.
So NOT offering a electronic version did jack to prevent an illegal copy being available.I've switched mostly to e-books - a lot of them from Baen.
They're doing fine with unrestricted e-books and outright giving a number of them away.Guess what Rowling - not releasing your ebooks hasn't caused me to buy paper copies, it's make me simply not read your works.
I've stopped pirating as I aged.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's start with the facts:

</p><p>1.Information can be copied at virtually no cost.<br>
2.The benefit of an intellectual work is multiplied by the number of people who use it.<br>
3.Creating intellectual works has a cost.

</p><p>The current system tries to satisfy 3 by limiting 1 in order to make the work behave more like a physical object, so that people will have to pay to get the work. Limiting 1 greatly reduces 2, and has all sorts of collateral damage.

</p><p>If we leave 1 intact, intellectual works have a far greater benefit to everyone. The challenge is to come up with a way to satisfy 3, without harming 1 and 2. The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions. Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit, so there is incentive.

</p><p>With the current sub-optimal system in place, there is no incentive to come up with a free-market solution, since the current system is effectively subsidized by taxes, and it even makes it dangerous not to play, due to the possibility of frivolous lawsuit. There is no justification for the current system, because it's been created almost entirely to benefit a small group of people, and it's been done at a cost of everyone's property rights. And no, ideas aren't property. Property is a way of dealing with conflict over scarce resources; if a resource isn't scarce, then everyone can use it without conflict. So it's not that "I have to come up with an alternate", it's that "you have to justify your continued infringement of my property rights".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's start with the facts : 1.Information can be copied at virtually no cost .
2.The benefit of an intellectual work is multiplied by the number of people who use it .
3.Creating intellectual works has a cost .
The current system tries to satisfy 3 by limiting 1 in order to make the work behave more like a physical object , so that people will have to pay to get the work .
Limiting 1 greatly reduces 2 , and has all sorts of collateral damage .
If we leave 1 intact , intellectual works have a far greater benefit to everyone .
The challenge is to come up with a way to satisfy 3 , without harming 1 and 2 .
The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions .
Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit , so there is incentive .
With the current sub-optimal system in place , there is no incentive to come up with a free-market solution , since the current system is effectively subsidized by taxes , and it even makes it dangerous not to play , due to the possibility of frivolous lawsuit .
There is no justification for the current system , because it 's been created almost entirely to benefit a small group of people , and it 's been done at a cost of everyone 's property rights .
And no , ideas are n't property .
Property is a way of dealing with conflict over scarce resources ; if a resource is n't scarce , then everyone can use it without conflict .
So it 's not that " I have to come up with an alternate " , it 's that " you have to justify your continued infringement of my property rights " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's start with the facts:

1.Information can be copied at virtually no cost.
2.The benefit of an intellectual work is multiplied by the number of people who use it.
3.Creating intellectual works has a cost.
The current system tries to satisfy 3 by limiting 1 in order to make the work behave more like a physical object, so that people will have to pay to get the work.
Limiting 1 greatly reduces 2, and has all sorts of collateral damage.
If we leave 1 intact, intellectual works have a far greater benefit to everyone.
The challenge is to come up with a way to satisfy 3, without harming 1 and 2.
The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions.
Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit, so there is incentive.
With the current sub-optimal system in place, there is no incentive to come up with a free-market solution, since the current system is effectively subsidized by taxes, and it even makes it dangerous not to play, due to the possibility of frivolous lawsuit.
There is no justification for the current system, because it's been created almost entirely to benefit a small group of people, and it's been done at a cost of everyone's property rights.
And no, ideas aren't property.
Property is a way of dealing with conflict over scarce resources; if a resource isn't scarce, then everyone can use it without conflict.
So it's not that "I have to come up with an alternate", it's that "you have to justify your continued infringement of my property rights".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625528</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>neutralstone</author>
	<datestamp>1262423520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we leave 1 intact, intellectual works have a far greater benefit to everyone. The challenge is to come up with a way to satisfy 3, without harming 1 and 2. The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions. Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit, so there is incentive.</p></div><p>To me it seems you assume it's possible, under your proposed scenario, for a viable solution to exist for most copyright holders.  To many of us it is not obvious that this is the case and it feels natural to assume differently.</p><p>IMO, the current system is *close* to being workable for all (or most) parties; the main problem, as I see it, is that the duration of exclusive rights has effectively become infinite when, in the age of instant global distribution, it should probably be no more than something like ten years.  (And there are probably a lot of special cases that could reasonably trigger either instant release into Public Domain or a small extension of copyright.)</p><p> Also, I think you're missing an item in your list:</p><p>4. The probability of creation of a valuable intellectual work is multiplied by the extent to which the would-be creator(s) have a fair opportunity to be compensated for the act of creation.</p><p>
Note that this sort of feeds into item 2:  no one can benefit from a work if it's never created in the first place.  So whatever we do, we really, really need something better than your personal faith in the market's ability to heal all that ails.  Obviously, the market provides a lot of nice solutions to a lot of problems.  I like the market for that reason.  But the market does not---cannot---solve every problem.  To assume that it can seems akin to assuming that natural selection *necessarily* leads to the "higher functions" of humanity (e.g. language, music, etc.) when in fact it's entirely possible for natural selection to lead many species into extinction.  (And reflect on the fact that the vast majority of branches on the tree of life do not reach the present day.)  So please do not underestimate the potential of the market to screw people over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we leave 1 intact , intellectual works have a far greater benefit to everyone .
The challenge is to come up with a way to satisfy 3 , without harming 1 and 2 .
The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions .
Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit , so there is incentive.To me it seems you assume it 's possible , under your proposed scenario , for a viable solution to exist for most copyright holders .
To many of us it is not obvious that this is the case and it feels natural to assume differently.IMO , the current system is * close * to being workable for all ( or most ) parties ; the main problem , as I see it , is that the duration of exclusive rights has effectively become infinite when , in the age of instant global distribution , it should probably be no more than something like ten years .
( And there are probably a lot of special cases that could reasonably trigger either instant release into Public Domain or a small extension of copyright .
) Also , I think you 're missing an item in your list : 4 .
The probability of creation of a valuable intellectual work is multiplied by the extent to which the would-be creator ( s ) have a fair opportunity to be compensated for the act of creation .
Note that this sort of feeds into item 2 : no one can benefit from a work if it 's never created in the first place .
So whatever we do , we really , really need something better than your personal faith in the market 's ability to heal all that ails .
Obviously , the market provides a lot of nice solutions to a lot of problems .
I like the market for that reason .
But the market does not---can not---solve every problem .
To assume that it can seems akin to assuming that natural selection * necessarily * leads to the " higher functions " of humanity ( e.g .
language , music , etc .
) when in fact it 's entirely possible for natural selection to lead many species into extinction .
( And reflect on the fact that the vast majority of branches on the tree of life do not reach the present day .
) So please do not underestimate the potential of the market to screw people over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we leave 1 intact, intellectual works have a far greater benefit to everyone.
The challenge is to come up with a way to satisfy 3, without harming 1 and 2.
The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions.
Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit, so there is incentive.To me it seems you assume it's possible, under your proposed scenario, for a viable solution to exist for most copyright holders.
To many of us it is not obvious that this is the case and it feels natural to assume differently.IMO, the current system is *close* to being workable for all (or most) parties; the main problem, as I see it, is that the duration of exclusive rights has effectively become infinite when, in the age of instant global distribution, it should probably be no more than something like ten years.
(And there are probably a lot of special cases that could reasonably trigger either instant release into Public Domain or a small extension of copyright.
) Also, I think you're missing an item in your list:4.
The probability of creation of a valuable intellectual work is multiplied by the extent to which the would-be creator(s) have a fair opportunity to be compensated for the act of creation.
Note that this sort of feeds into item 2:  no one can benefit from a work if it's never created in the first place.
So whatever we do, we really, really need something better than your personal faith in the market's ability to heal all that ails.
Obviously, the market provides a lot of nice solutions to a lot of problems.
I like the market for that reason.
But the market does not---cannot---solve every problem.
To assume that it can seems akin to assuming that natural selection *necessarily* leads to the "higher functions" of humanity (e.g.
language, music, etc.
) when in fact it's entirely possible for natural selection to lead many species into extinction.
(And reflect on the fact that the vast majority of branches on the tree of life do not reach the present day.
)  So please do not underestimate the potential of the market to screw people over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622686</id>
	<title>Re:bought 3.1 times as many books.. from Amazon!</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262451000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon isn't the only place to buy ebooks either. The only safe stats they have are what they sell which is why they've used kindle stats vs physical books sold through Amazon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon is n't the only place to buy ebooks either .
The only safe stats they have are what they sell which is why they 've used kindle stats vs physical books sold through Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon isn't the only place to buy ebooks either.
The only safe stats they have are what they sell which is why they've used kindle stats vs physical books sold through Amazon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625412</id>
	<title>Blame, blame, blame ...</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1262422860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Novelist Blames Piracy On Open Source Culture.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>In related news, everyone blames Novelists for the current culture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... Novelist Blames Piracy On Open Source Culture .
... " In related news , everyone blames Novelists for the current culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... Novelist Blames Piracy On Open Source Culture.
..."In related news, everyone blames Novelists for the current culture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623200</id>
	<title>Kindle Recommendation and a Request for Help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello everyone,<br>I need a little help from the slashdot community.  I am interested in reading some of this author's works, but they don't seem to be available for the Kindle yet.  Please take a few moments out of your day to help me by clicking on the link on each of this author's books that indicates a desire to have the book available on the kindle. Here is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sherman-Alexie/e/B000APMSV4/ref=sr\_tc\_2\_0" title="amazon.com">a link </a> [amazon.com] to his author page on Amazon to get you started.<br>
Thanks a lot for your assistance.  I look forward to reading these books on my Kindle very soon now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello everyone,I need a little help from the slashdot community .
I am interested in reading some of this author 's works , but they do n't seem to be available for the Kindle yet .
Please take a few moments out of your day to help me by clicking on the link on each of this author 's books that indicates a desire to have the book available on the kindle .
Here is a link [ amazon.com ] to his author page on Amazon to get you started .
Thanks a lot for your assistance .
I look forward to reading these books on my Kindle very soon now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello everyone,I need a little help from the slashdot community.
I am interested in reading some of this author's works, but they don't seem to be available for the Kindle yet.
Please take a few moments out of your day to help me by clicking on the link on each of this author's books that indicates a desire to have the book available on the kindle.
Here is a link  [amazon.com] to his author page on Amazon to get you started.
Thanks a lot for your assistance.
I look forward to reading these books on my Kindle very soon now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623650</id>
	<title>Why do you care?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1262456100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if you get enough clueless, misinformed and 'terrified' people running around acting stupid, you end up with rights restrictive legislation like the DMCA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if you get enough clueless , misinformed and 'terrified ' people running around acting stupid , you end up with rights restrictive legislation like the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if you get enough clueless, misinformed and 'terrified' people running around acting stupid, you end up with rights restrictive legislation like the DMCA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622580</id>
	<title>100,000 times?</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1262450280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA states:</p><blockquote><div><p>"Less than 24 hours after its release, pirated digital copies of the novel were found on file-sharing sites such as Rapidshare and BitTorrent. Within days, it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times"</p></div></blockquote><p>Where do they get these numbers from?  Do Rapidshare release download stats?  Is there some secret BitTorrent download counter/tracker these people have access to?  This has got to be a figure someone has just pulled out of their ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA states : " Less than 24 hours after its release , pirated digital copies of the novel were found on file-sharing sites such as Rapidshare and BitTorrent .
Within days , it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times " Where do they get these numbers from ?
Do Rapidshare release download stats ?
Is there some secret BitTorrent download counter/tracker these people have access to ?
This has got to be a figure someone has just pulled out of their ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA states:"Less than 24 hours after its release, pirated digital copies of the novel were found on file-sharing sites such as Rapidshare and BitTorrent.
Within days, it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times"Where do they get these numbers from?
Do Rapidshare release download stats?
Is there some secret BitTorrent download counter/tracker these people have access to?
This has got to be a figure someone has just pulled out of their ass.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624698</id>
	<title>Re:Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262461800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, welcome to Slashdot!  You must be new here.</p><p>Whenever a piracy story comes up, the apologists come out of the woodwork here.  Pirates have been hiding under the skirts of the open source movement for ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , welcome to Slashdot !
You must be new here.Whenever a piracy story comes up , the apologists come out of the woodwork here .
Pirates have been hiding under the skirts of the open source movement for ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, welcome to Slashdot!
You must be new here.Whenever a piracy story comes up, the apologists come out of the woodwork here.
Pirates have been hiding under the skirts of the open source movement for ages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623526</id>
	<title>I borrow all my books and rarely buy anything.</title>
	<author>Sirusjr</author>
	<datestamp>1262455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see how piracy is much different than being friends with a book addict who has mountains and mountains of books ready to lend you more than you could possibly read in a lifetime.  I've bought very few books because when I walk into the store there are tons of books to choose from and I am not about to randomly judge a book by its cover and pay money for something I don't know if I'll like.  Sure I could read book reviews by various publications but its much easier and cheaper to have my friend lend me everything after he has read it and told me what is good.  I sure hope he doesn't get a Kindle anytime soon though or my source for free books will dry up quick!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how piracy is much different than being friends with a book addict who has mountains and mountains of books ready to lend you more than you could possibly read in a lifetime .
I 've bought very few books because when I walk into the store there are tons of books to choose from and I am not about to randomly judge a book by its cover and pay money for something I do n't know if I 'll like .
Sure I could read book reviews by various publications but its much easier and cheaper to have my friend lend me everything after he has read it and told me what is good .
I sure hope he does n't get a Kindle anytime soon though or my source for free books will dry up quick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how piracy is much different than being friends with a book addict who has mountains and mountains of books ready to lend you more than you could possibly read in a lifetime.
I've bought very few books because when I walk into the store there are tons of books to choose from and I am not about to randomly judge a book by its cover and pay money for something I don't know if I'll like.
Sure I could read book reviews by various publications but its much easier and cheaper to have my friend lend me everything after he has read it and told me what is good.
I sure hope he doesn't get a Kindle anytime soon though or my source for free books will dry up quick!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625346</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262465640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about technology - GPL violations have been pursued through the courts plenty of times.</p><p>I blame piracy on the fact that the illusion of artificial scarcity is hard to maintain, and everyone wants something for nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about technology - GPL violations have been pursued through the courts plenty of times.I blame piracy on the fact that the illusion of artificial scarcity is hard to maintain , and everyone wants something for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about technology - GPL violations have been pursued through the courts plenty of times.I blame piracy on the fact that the illusion of artificial scarcity is hard to maintain, and everyone wants something for nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623594</id>
	<title>Charles Dickens would find it ironic</title>
	<author>thewils</author>
	<datestamp>1262455800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that the same country that told him to <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/news/technology+killed+copyright/2398525/story.html" title="vancouversun.com">go take a hike</a> [vancouversun.com] when he complained about Americans printing copies of his book without paying him royalties is now battling so hard to prevent on-line piracy. What goes around, comes around I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that the same country that told him to go take a hike [ vancouversun.com ] when he complained about Americans printing copies of his book without paying him royalties is now battling so hard to prevent on-line piracy .
What goes around , comes around I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that the same country that told him to go take a hike [vancouversun.com] when he complained about Americans printing copies of his book without paying him royalties is now battling so hard to prevent on-line piracy.
What goes around, comes around I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625256</id>
	<title>Re:Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262465100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, there are quite a few authors who misuse FLOSS terms - even those terms that have a very specific meaning - as synonyms of "piracy". For another example, here's a (translated) citation from one fairly popular Russian sci-fi/fantasy writer, Sergey Lukyanenko (the guy who wrote the book on which <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0403358/" title="imdb.com">this movie</a> [imdb.com] is directly based), from his essay on author's rights and Internet:</p><p>"The text is stolen? This is the inevitable destiny of any good (and not even necessarily good) book. It will spread through various "online libraries" (mostly owned by proponents of <b>"copyleft" - that is, theft of author's rights</b>)."</p><p>He repeats the word "copyleft" three more times within the same chapter, repeatedly stressing his understanding of the term as equivalent to "pro-copyright infringement".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , there are quite a few authors who misuse FLOSS terms - even those terms that have a very specific meaning - as synonyms of " piracy " .
For another example , here 's a ( translated ) citation from one fairly popular Russian sci-fi/fantasy writer , Sergey Lukyanenko ( the guy who wrote the book on which this movie [ imdb.com ] is directly based ) , from his essay on author 's rights and Internet : " The text is stolen ?
This is the inevitable destiny of any good ( and not even necessarily good ) book .
It will spread through various " online libraries " ( mostly owned by proponents of " copyleft " - that is , theft of author 's rights ) .
" He repeats the word " copyleft " three more times within the same chapter , repeatedly stressing his understanding of the term as equivalent to " pro-copyright infringement " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, there are quite a few authors who misuse FLOSS terms - even those terms that have a very specific meaning - as synonyms of "piracy".
For another example, here's a (translated) citation from one fairly popular Russian sci-fi/fantasy writer, Sergey Lukyanenko (the guy who wrote the book on which this movie [imdb.com] is directly based), from his essay on author's rights and Internet:"The text is stolen?
This is the inevitable destiny of any good (and not even necessarily good) book.
It will spread through various "online libraries" (mostly owned by proponents of "copyleft" - that is, theft of author's rights).
"He repeats the word "copyleft" three more times within the same chapter, repeatedly stressing his understanding of the term as equivalent to "pro-copyright infringement".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622626</id>
	<title>Cinnamon pick-apart author</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262450640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let us tear him a new one, it is easy.</p><blockquote><div><p>Digital piracy, long confined to music and movies, is spreading to books.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Actually, there have long been digital books, and they have long been pirated. It doesn't stop <a href="http://oreilly.com/" title="oreilly.com">people</a> [oreilly.com] from making a profit selling them. Also, paper books have long been digitized, then pirated digitally. They seem to still sell. This article: (-1, Sensationalist) And, I might add, it straddles the line between ignorance and fraud. It left poetic license behind several states ago.</p><blockquote><div><p>"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership -- of artistic ownership -- goes away," Alexie added. "It terrifies me."</p></div> </blockquote><p>This is based on a retarded notion of what open source means. I'm not talking about the OSI definition or anything; but in any case, it remains true that both Open Source <em>and</em> Free Software are powered by copyright! And even the BSD license, which retains copyright notices, explicitly retains the idea of artistic ownership. In fact, that's <em>all</em> it does. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman\_Alexie" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia asserts that Alexie considers e-Books "elitist"</a> [wikipedia.org], but that obviously makes him some kind of asshole. Here's precisely why: <em>computers are free</em>. You can get a shitpile computer which can certainly handle reading an eBook for literally <em>zero dollars</em>. Freecycle, craigslist, places like this here Slashdot... People are giving away working computers every day. And people who can't even afford the obscene $4+ price for a used paperback, let alone the egregious $8 and up for a new one (god forbid the $20+ for a hardcover) can consume eBooks <strong>for free</strong>, both legally from sources like <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/" title="gutenberg.org">Project Gutenberg</a> [gutenberg.org] and illegally from... well, you know. All the usual spots.</p><p>Thus, Sherman Alexie is one of the following: Either a <em>fucking idiot flapping his yap when he has no understanding whatsoever about the technology, i.e. a petrified luddite</em>, or <em>a hypocrite assaulting new media because he is afraid that if everyone (including the "disadvantaged") has free access to media, he won't be making any money any more</em>. The simple truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of books available for free in one way or another. This quote (which I picked up from Wikipedia) should set most of you at odds with him immediately:<nobr> <wbr></nobr><strong>...many of my detractors fail to see one of the negative meanings: the audience decides which source material is or is not "open."</strong> He thinks eBooks are elitist because they bring power to the masses? Very clever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us tear him a new one , it is easy.Digital piracy , long confined to music and movies , is spreading to books .
Actually , there have long been digital books , and they have long been pirated .
It does n't stop people [ oreilly.com ] from making a profit selling them .
Also , paper books have long been digitized , then pirated digitally .
They seem to still sell .
This article : ( -1 , Sensationalist ) And , I might add , it straddles the line between ignorance and fraud .
It left poetic license behind several states ago .
" With the open-source culture on the Internet , the idea of ownership -- of artistic ownership -- goes away , " Alexie added .
" It terrifies me .
" This is based on a retarded notion of what open source means .
I 'm not talking about the OSI definition or anything ; but in any case , it remains true that both Open Source and Free Software are powered by copyright !
And even the BSD license , which retains copyright notices , explicitly retains the idea of artistic ownership .
In fact , that 's all it does .
Wikipedia asserts that Alexie considers e-Books " elitist " [ wikipedia.org ] , but that obviously makes him some kind of asshole .
Here 's precisely why : computers are free .
You can get a shitpile computer which can certainly handle reading an eBook for literally zero dollars .
Freecycle , craigslist , places like this here Slashdot... People are giving away working computers every day .
And people who ca n't even afford the obscene $ 4 + price for a used paperback , let alone the egregious $ 8 and up for a new one ( god forbid the $ 20 + for a hardcover ) can consume eBooks for free , both legally from sources like Project Gutenberg [ gutenberg.org ] and illegally from... well , you know .
All the usual spots.Thus , Sherman Alexie is one of the following : Either a fucking idiot flapping his yap when he has no understanding whatsoever about the technology , i.e .
a petrified luddite , or a hypocrite assaulting new media because he is afraid that if everyone ( including the " disadvantaged " ) has free access to media , he wo n't be making any money any more .
The simple truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of books available for free in one way or another .
This quote ( which I picked up from Wikipedia ) should set most of you at odds with him immediately : ...many of my detractors fail to see one of the negative meanings : the audience decides which source material is or is not " open .
" He thinks eBooks are elitist because they bring power to the masses ?
Very clever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us tear him a new one, it is easy.Digital piracy, long confined to music and movies, is spreading to books.
Actually, there have long been digital books, and they have long been pirated.
It doesn't stop people [oreilly.com] from making a profit selling them.
Also, paper books have long been digitized, then pirated digitally.
They seem to still sell.
This article: (-1, Sensationalist) And, I might add, it straddles the line between ignorance and fraud.
It left poetic license behind several states ago.
"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership -- of artistic ownership -- goes away," Alexie added.
"It terrifies me.
" This is based on a retarded notion of what open source means.
I'm not talking about the OSI definition or anything; but in any case, it remains true that both Open Source and Free Software are powered by copyright!
And even the BSD license, which retains copyright notices, explicitly retains the idea of artistic ownership.
In fact, that's all it does.
Wikipedia asserts that Alexie considers e-Books "elitist" [wikipedia.org], but that obviously makes him some kind of asshole.
Here's precisely why: computers are free.
You can get a shitpile computer which can certainly handle reading an eBook for literally zero dollars.
Freecycle, craigslist, places like this here Slashdot... People are giving away working computers every day.
And people who can't even afford the obscene $4+ price for a used paperback, let alone the egregious $8 and up for a new one (god forbid the $20+ for a hardcover) can consume eBooks for free, both legally from sources like Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org] and illegally from... well, you know.
All the usual spots.Thus, Sherman Alexie is one of the following: Either a fucking idiot flapping his yap when he has no understanding whatsoever about the technology, i.e.
a petrified luddite, or a hypocrite assaulting new media because he is afraid that if everyone (including the "disadvantaged") has free access to media, he won't be making any money any more.
The simple truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of books available for free in one way or another.
This quote (which I picked up from Wikipedia) should set most of you at odds with him immediately: ...many of my detractors fail to see one of the negative meanings: the audience decides which source material is or is not "open.
" He thinks eBooks are elitist because they bring power to the masses?
Very clever.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622534</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it's ok to steal, as long as you steal more than you could possibly have bought legitimately otherwise? Sounds great. I guess you'll have no problems then with me pirating millions of dollars worth of money. It's not like I could have earnt it legitimately anyway. And if they just made money easier to make, I wouldn't have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's ok to steal , as long as you steal more than you could possibly have bought legitimately otherwise ?
Sounds great .
I guess you 'll have no problems then with me pirating millions of dollars worth of money .
It 's not like I could have earnt it legitimately anyway .
And if they just made money easier to make , I would n't have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's ok to steal, as long as you steal more than you could possibly have bought legitimately otherwise?
Sounds great.
I guess you'll have no problems then with me pirating millions of dollars worth of money.
It's not like I could have earnt it legitimately anyway.
And if they just made money easier to make, I wouldn't have to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622520</id>
	<title>The defination of piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262449920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Piracy: the measure of people who are interested enough to try your product but not interested enough to buy your product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Piracy : the measure of people who are interested enough to try your product but not interested enough to buy your product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piracy: the measure of people who are interested enough to try your product but not interested enough to buy your product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624864</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think you posted to the wrong article.  We are talking about downloading ebooks here, not stealing.</p><p>Unfortunately I can't find any front page articles that have anything to do with stealing, so maybe you are posting to the wrong website totally?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think you posted to the wrong article .
We are talking about downloading ebooks here , not stealing.Unfortunately I ca n't find any front page articles that have anything to do with stealing , so maybe you are posting to the wrong website totally ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think you posted to the wrong article.
We are talking about downloading ebooks here, not stealing.Unfortunately I can't find any front page articles that have anything to do with stealing, so maybe you are posting to the wrong website totally?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623324</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're going to pirate money itself? Let me know how that turns out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're going to pirate money itself ?
Let me know how that turns out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're going to pirate money itself?
Let me know how that turns out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622146</id>
	<title>No shit.  Duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262446860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if the consumer didn't feel ripped off, exploited, and raped by every business and company they have to deal with we'd be more receptive and less possessive of whatever goods we happen to come across.  Half the damn stuff in my house I don't really own, I license or lease or rent it or whatever.  Damn right I like the idea of open source and control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if the consumer did n't feel ripped off , exploited , and raped by every business and company they have to deal with we 'd be more receptive and less possessive of whatever goods we happen to come across .
Half the damn stuff in my house I do n't really own , I license or lease or rent it or whatever .
Damn right I like the idea of open source and control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if the consumer didn't feel ripped off, exploited, and raped by every business and company they have to deal with we'd be more receptive and less possessive of whatever goods we happen to come across.
Half the damn stuff in my house I don't really own, I license or lease or rent it or whatever.
Damn right I like the idea of open source and control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622636</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1262450700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's standard routine. If your business fails blame someone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's standard routine .
If your business fails blame someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's standard routine.
If your business fails blame someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624804</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>&gt;The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions. Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit, so there is incentive. </i></p><p>Notice how none of the open source vendors (who make available software thousands of times more valuable than a book) are particularly profitable in comparison to their proprietary counterparts.  And novelists can't sell aftermarket support either.</p><p>There is no solution.  Saying that authors should find a new business model when there is none is just asinine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions .
Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit , so there is incentive .
Notice how none of the open source vendors ( who make available software thousands of times more valuable than a book ) are particularly profitable in comparison to their proprietary counterparts .
And novelists ca n't sell aftermarket support either.There is no solution .
Saying that authors should find a new business model when there is none is just asinine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions.
Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit, so there is incentive.
Notice how none of the open source vendors (who make available software thousands of times more valuable than a book) are particularly profitable in comparison to their proprietary counterparts.
And novelists can't sell aftermarket support either.There is no solution.
Saying that authors should find a new business model when there is none is just asinine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625466</id>
	<title>Idiot.</title>
	<author>lucian1900</author>
	<datestamp>1262423100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You won't be catching me buying anything of his, that's for sure. Good job turning off those who are even vaguely informed on the matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You wo n't be catching me buying anything of his , that 's for sure .
Good job turning off those who are even vaguely informed on the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You won't be catching me buying anything of his, that's for sure.
Good job turning off those who are even vaguely informed on the matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622312</id>
	<title>He should give his book away...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and charge for support.</p><p>Enough said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and charge for support.Enough said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and charge for support.Enough said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622884</id>
	<title>public confusion over the term "open source"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Unfortunately the average person has very little idea what the term "open source" actually means. It's a technical term that's vague to them. These are the kind of people who probably also aren't clear on the term "operating system," etc.
</p><p>
I've seen both positive and negative misinterpretations flying around. The usage in TFA seems to be open source == piracy, or maybe open source == free as in beer. If you really parse the quote from the article in terms of the actual meaning of "open source," it doesn't make any sense. Actual quote: "With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of [artistic] ownership [...] goes away." Meaning: "People on the internet are used to being able to see the original programming instructions used to create their software, and with that culture, the idea of [artistic] ownership [...] goes away." It obviously doesn't make any sense. It also doesn't make sense when you consider that open-source licenses like BSD and GPL can only be enforced because the original authors <i>own</i> the copyright.
</p><p>
There are also people who see "open-source" as a feel-good term, like "green," and they apply it inappropriately because they want some of that goodness to rub off on them. For instance, I went to a symposium in August here in California where the results of Schwarzenegger's Free Digital Textbook Initiative were announced. Participants included open-source types from Curriki, CK-12, and Connexions, as well as teachers, politicians, IT folks, hardware vendors, and textbook publishers. The only traditional publisher that submitted any books to the initiative was Pearson, and all they submitted was a consumable workbook, not actual textbooks. Pearson's rep referred to its workbook as "free and open-source," but in fact the workbook is not open source in any sense. (It's distributed in a non-editable format, and it's not distributed under an open-source license.)
</p><p>
It's unfortunate that we haven't ended up with terminology that's more understandable to the average person. We had people like RMS advocating the term "free software," and others like Eric Raymond pushing for "open source." This had to do with an ideological agreement within the free software/OSS movement. The problem is that neither term is easy for outsiders to understand. "Free software" simply implies free as in beer to most people. They equate it to "freeware," i.e., low-quality, closed-source Windows software that you download from someone's Geocities page as a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe file. "Open source" isn't understandable to most people, because they don't understand the distinction between source code and executable code.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the average person has very little idea what the term " open source " actually means .
It 's a technical term that 's vague to them .
These are the kind of people who probably also are n't clear on the term " operating system , " etc .
I 've seen both positive and negative misinterpretations flying around .
The usage in TFA seems to be open source = = piracy , or maybe open source = = free as in beer .
If you really parse the quote from the article in terms of the actual meaning of " open source , " it does n't make any sense .
Actual quote : " With the open-source culture on the Internet , the idea of [ artistic ] ownership [ ... ] goes away .
" Meaning : " People on the internet are used to being able to see the original programming instructions used to create their software , and with that culture , the idea of [ artistic ] ownership [ ... ] goes away .
" It obviously does n't make any sense .
It also does n't make sense when you consider that open-source licenses like BSD and GPL can only be enforced because the original authors own the copyright .
There are also people who see " open-source " as a feel-good term , like " green , " and they apply it inappropriately because they want some of that goodness to rub off on them .
For instance , I went to a symposium in August here in California where the results of Schwarzenegger 's Free Digital Textbook Initiative were announced .
Participants included open-source types from Curriki , CK-12 , and Connexions , as well as teachers , politicians , IT folks , hardware vendors , and textbook publishers .
The only traditional publisher that submitted any books to the initiative was Pearson , and all they submitted was a consumable workbook , not actual textbooks .
Pearson 's rep referred to its workbook as " free and open-source , " but in fact the workbook is not open source in any sense .
( It 's distributed in a non-editable format , and it 's not distributed under an open-source license .
) It 's unfortunate that we have n't ended up with terminology that 's more understandable to the average person .
We had people like RMS advocating the term " free software , " and others like Eric Raymond pushing for " open source .
" This had to do with an ideological agreement within the free software/OSS movement .
The problem is that neither term is easy for outsiders to understand .
" Free software " simply implies free as in beer to most people .
They equate it to " freeware , " i.e. , low-quality , closed-source Windows software that you download from someone 's Geocities page as a .exe file .
" Open source " is n't understandable to most people , because they do n't understand the distinction between source code and executable code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Unfortunately the average person has very little idea what the term "open source" actually means.
It's a technical term that's vague to them.
These are the kind of people who probably also aren't clear on the term "operating system," etc.
I've seen both positive and negative misinterpretations flying around.
The usage in TFA seems to be open source == piracy, or maybe open source == free as in beer.
If you really parse the quote from the article in terms of the actual meaning of "open source," it doesn't make any sense.
Actual quote: "With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of [artistic] ownership [...] goes away.
" Meaning: "People on the internet are used to being able to see the original programming instructions used to create their software, and with that culture, the idea of [artistic] ownership [...] goes away.
" It obviously doesn't make any sense.
It also doesn't make sense when you consider that open-source licenses like BSD and GPL can only be enforced because the original authors own the copyright.
There are also people who see "open-source" as a feel-good term, like "green," and they apply it inappropriately because they want some of that goodness to rub off on them.
For instance, I went to a symposium in August here in California where the results of Schwarzenegger's Free Digital Textbook Initiative were announced.
Participants included open-source types from Curriki, CK-12, and Connexions, as well as teachers, politicians, IT folks, hardware vendors, and textbook publishers.
The only traditional publisher that submitted any books to the initiative was Pearson, and all they submitted was a consumable workbook, not actual textbooks.
Pearson's rep referred to its workbook as "free and open-source," but in fact the workbook is not open source in any sense.
(It's distributed in a non-editable format, and it's not distributed under an open-source license.
)

It's unfortunate that we haven't ended up with terminology that's more understandable to the average person.
We had people like RMS advocating the term "free software," and others like Eric Raymond pushing for "open source.
" This had to do with an ideological agreement within the free software/OSS movement.
The problem is that neither term is easy for outsiders to understand.
"Free software" simply implies free as in beer to most people.
They equate it to "freeware," i.e., low-quality, closed-source Windows software that you download from someone's Geocities page as a .exe file.
"Open source" isn't understandable to most people, because they don't understand the distinction between source code and executable code.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622390</id>
	<title>Text Books</title>
	<author>Niris</author>
	<datestamp>1262448900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I kind of find it funny that they're complaining about text books being pirated. After all they've been charging far too much for them for a very long time, and it's ridiculous since the people they're trying to screw over are students. If your parents aren't rich and paying for everything for you at school, you have to work to pay rent, food, bills and for classes/tuition, and a lot of those students can't get loans if their parents aren't on the up and up, so it's practically criminal that the text books would cost that much for how cheap they are to print.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I kind of find it funny that they 're complaining about text books being pirated .
After all they 've been charging far too much for them for a very long time , and it 's ridiculous since the people they 're trying to screw over are students .
If your parents are n't rich and paying for everything for you at school , you have to work to pay rent , food , bills and for classes/tuition , and a lot of those students ca n't get loans if their parents are n't on the up and up , so it 's practically criminal that the text books would cost that much for how cheap they are to print .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kind of find it funny that they're complaining about text books being pirated.
After all they've been charging far too much for them for a very long time, and it's ridiculous since the people they're trying to screw over are students.
If your parents aren't rich and paying for everything for you at school, you have to work to pay rent, food, bills and for classes/tuition, and a lot of those students can't get loans if their parents aren't on the up and up, so it's practically criminal that the text books would cost that much for how cheap they are to print.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622336</id>
	<title>His book(s) are practically required reading</title>
	<author>gelfling</author>
	<datestamp>1262448540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In HS and many MANY college sociology, anthropology, ethnic studies, etc. his books are required reading. So he's not hurting either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In HS and many MANY college sociology , anthropology , ethnic studies , etc .
his books are required reading .
So he 's not hurting either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In HS and many MANY college sociology, anthropology, ethnic studies, etc.
his books are required reading.
So he's not hurting either way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710</id>
	<title>The "hobbyist art is good enough" argument</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, these people still need to eat. They need physical goods to be able to do their work. That means they need to get paid.</p></div><p>I have bought four guitars, two amps, cables, effect pedals, a saxophone and a clarinet, pooling together summer job wages, birthday gifts, savings of allowances, et cetera.  I've been in a recording studio twice; I've performed on the local town square once, and at several events locally.  Back when I was a kid (~14-18yo) and didn't have any real money.</p><p>Musicians want to play.  Actors want to act.  Writers want to write.</p><p>The publishers acted as quality assurance; they did searching and pruning, so we could have the best art.  You know what also does that?  A moderation system (/.).  A review system (amazon).  A simple counting mechanism ("most downloaded this day/week/month/year").</p><p>None of them are perfect.  So aren't the studios.  And some artists already choose a life of material poverty in return for wealth in terms of self-expression and self-actualization.</p><p>Exactly why is it that the people's need for art can't be satisfied well enough this way?  Some amateurs are <em>really</em> good.  Oh, so we'll go to the theatre and look at people rather than go to the cinema and look at screens, because making films is rather resource-intensive (i.e. expensive).  Or we'll watch more shorts and/or more animated films.  Won't we still be entertained?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , these people still need to eat .
They need physical goods to be able to do their work .
That means they need to get paid.I have bought four guitars , two amps , cables , effect pedals , a saxophone and a clarinet , pooling together summer job wages , birthday gifts , savings of allowances , et cetera .
I 've been in a recording studio twice ; I 've performed on the local town square once , and at several events locally .
Back when I was a kid ( ~ 14-18yo ) and did n't have any real money.Musicians want to play .
Actors want to act .
Writers want to write.The publishers acted as quality assurance ; they did searching and pruning , so we could have the best art .
You know what also does that ?
A moderation system ( /. ) .
A review system ( amazon ) .
A simple counting mechanism ( " most downloaded this day/week/month/year " ) .None of them are perfect .
So are n't the studios .
And some artists already choose a life of material poverty in return for wealth in terms of self-expression and self-actualization.Exactly why is it that the people 's need for art ca n't be satisfied well enough this way ?
Some amateurs are really good .
Oh , so we 'll go to the theatre and look at people rather than go to the cinema and look at screens , because making films is rather resource-intensive ( i.e .
expensive ) . Or we 'll watch more shorts and/or more animated films .
Wo n't we still be entertained ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, these people still need to eat.
They need physical goods to be able to do their work.
That means they need to get paid.I have bought four guitars, two amps, cables, effect pedals, a saxophone and a clarinet, pooling together summer job wages, birthday gifts, savings of allowances, et cetera.
I've been in a recording studio twice; I've performed on the local town square once, and at several events locally.
Back when I was a kid (~14-18yo) and didn't have any real money.Musicians want to play.
Actors want to act.
Writers want to write.The publishers acted as quality assurance; they did searching and pruning, so we could have the best art.
You know what also does that?
A moderation system (/.).
A review system (amazon).
A simple counting mechanism ("most downloaded this day/week/month/year").None of them are perfect.
So aren't the studios.
And some artists already choose a life of material poverty in return for wealth in terms of self-expression and self-actualization.Exactly why is it that the people's need for art can't be satisfied well enough this way?
Some amateurs are really good.
Oh, so we'll go to the theatre and look at people rather than go to the cinema and look at screens, because making films is rather resource-intensive (i.e.
expensive).  Or we'll watch more shorts and/or more animated films.
Won't we still be entertained?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622922</id>
	<title>He was on Colbert Report...</title>
	<author>chrisl456</author>
	<datestamp>1262452200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/257719/december-01-2009/sherman-alexie" title="colbertnation.com" rel="nofollow">This guy is just absolutely nuts.</a> [colbertnation.com] Biggest Luddite I've ever seen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is just absolutely nuts .
[ colbertnation.com ] Biggest Luddite I 've ever seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy is just absolutely nuts.
[colbertnation.com] Biggest Luddite I've ever seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622470</id>
	<title>Re:The real story should be. . .</title>
	<author>LarrySDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1262449620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The craziest thing is we have libraries. Generally, if you want to read a paper book for free you can do so. A while back I got stuck in a weird dilemma. I wanted to reread "Of mice and men". Sort of. Not enough to pay for it. I wanted an ebook copy. There were none legally at the time. I grabbed a non-legal one. I considered buying a copy, just to keep thing even. Then I realized the local library had a copy. Except of course it's a bit dumb to use *their* copy, just so that I have legal access to the text so that I don't feel bad about grabbing an illegal e-version. When it comes to a head like that, the absurdity becomes pretty clear.

They're in no more jeopardy then when the Gutenberg press started. Chill and roll with the times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The craziest thing is we have libraries .
Generally , if you want to read a paper book for free you can do so .
A while back I got stuck in a weird dilemma .
I wanted to reread " Of mice and men " .
Sort of .
Not enough to pay for it .
I wanted an ebook copy .
There were none legally at the time .
I grabbed a non-legal one .
I considered buying a copy , just to keep thing even .
Then I realized the local library had a copy .
Except of course it 's a bit dumb to use * their * copy , just so that I have legal access to the text so that I do n't feel bad about grabbing an illegal e-version .
When it comes to a head like that , the absurdity becomes pretty clear .
They 're in no more jeopardy then when the Gutenberg press started .
Chill and roll with the times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The craziest thing is we have libraries.
Generally, if you want to read a paper book for free you can do so.
A while back I got stuck in a weird dilemma.
I wanted to reread "Of mice and men".
Sort of.
Not enough to pay for it.
I wanted an ebook copy.
There were none legally at the time.
I grabbed a non-legal one.
I considered buying a copy, just to keep thing even.
Then I realized the local library had a copy.
Except of course it's a bit dumb to use *their* copy, just so that I have legal access to the text so that I don't feel bad about grabbing an illegal e-version.
When it comes to a head like that, the absurdity becomes pretty clear.
They're in no more jeopardy then when the Gutenberg press started.
Chill and roll with the times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625192</id>
	<title>Re:The "hobbyist art is good enough" argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262464800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Musicians want to play. Actors want to act. Writers want to write."</p><p>You'd be surprised.  As someone that has done two of the three, and has a mother doing the other...all professionally...we hate our jobs just as much as you do.</p><p>I'm headed to LA to do some sessions next week.  Why?  Because as an academic (post-grad behavioral research), I can't earn enough to pay for my meager home in the ghetto on what the university pays.</p><p>I'd rather be teaching and creating something valuable and worthwhile, but $38k a year to work 60+ hours a week isn't really that much.</p><p>So what do I do?  I go to LA and write songs for a week...fix bad ones for others...do I like this?  Fuck no...IT IS A JOB...</p><p>As a hobbiest, I like doing it, but my output is practically nothing.  It is just like most open source hobbist attempts...most don't get the polish needed until someone is paid to do it.</p><p>The point is, most of us in these industries do so not because of love, but because it is a job (or at least that is how it ends up).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Musicians want to play .
Actors want to act .
Writers want to write .
" You 'd be surprised .
As someone that has done two of the three , and has a mother doing the other...all professionally...we hate our jobs just as much as you do.I 'm headed to LA to do some sessions next week .
Why ? Because as an academic ( post-grad behavioral research ) , I ca n't earn enough to pay for my meager home in the ghetto on what the university pays.I 'd rather be teaching and creating something valuable and worthwhile , but $ 38k a year to work 60 + hours a week is n't really that much.So what do I do ?
I go to LA and write songs for a week...fix bad ones for others...do I like this ?
Fuck no...IT IS A JOB...As a hobbiest , I like doing it , but my output is practically nothing .
It is just like most open source hobbist attempts...most do n't get the polish needed until someone is paid to do it.The point is , most of us in these industries do so not because of love , but because it is a job ( or at least that is how it ends up ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Musicians want to play.
Actors want to act.
Writers want to write.
"You'd be surprised.
As someone that has done two of the three, and has a mother doing the other...all professionally...we hate our jobs just as much as you do.I'm headed to LA to do some sessions next week.
Why?  Because as an academic (post-grad behavioral research), I can't earn enough to pay for my meager home in the ghetto on what the university pays.I'd rather be teaching and creating something valuable and worthwhile, but $38k a year to work 60+ hours a week isn't really that much.So what do I do?
I go to LA and write songs for a week...fix bad ones for others...do I like this?
Fuck no...IT IS A JOB...As a hobbiest, I like doing it, but my output is practically nothing.
It is just like most open source hobbist attempts...most don't get the polish needed until someone is paid to do it.The point is, most of us in these industries do so not because of love, but because it is a job (or at least that is how it ends up).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622480</id>
	<title>Re:Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>Darfeld</author>
	<datestamp>1262449680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Ones again people will confuse things and diabolise a those two things with a single name.  Kinda sad... And I'm sure some people will make anything to make it worse...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Ones again people will confuse things and diabolise a those two things with a single name .
Kinda sad... And I 'm sure some people will make anything to make it worse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Ones again people will confuse things and diabolise a those two things with a single name.
Kinda sad... And I'm sure some people will make anything to make it worse...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623170</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1262453640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Their works are no longer viable."<br> <br>

No, the old model of distributing their works is no longer viable, because of computers and the Internet.  At one time, artists of all sorts could rely on the fact that producing a copy of their works required significant effort and money as the vehicle for their profits.  Now, things have changed:  computers can create perfect copies (or nearly perfect) of a given work in an instant, and such copies can be passed between computers very rapidly using the Internet, and with little effort on the part of the computer's users.  Nothing, no amount of legal maneuvering, no amount of lobbying, no amount of propaganda or fear mongering or restriction technologies can change that fundamental fact about computers or the Internet.<br> <br>

What artists should do is adopt a new model of distribution.  For authors, this means abandoning the publishing industry altogether, which is not necessary in an age of instant and perfect copying.  For fiction writers, stories should not be released all at once, but one chapter at a time, with the requirement for the next chapter's release being a certain minimum number of payments; each chapter should include instructions for payment at the end, with a note about the conditions for releasing the next chapter (there is nothing in the "pirate" culture that should compel people to remove such information).  For textbooks, this means a very radical shift away from the for-profit textbook publishing model, and towards a model where universities have their best professors take some time away from teaching to collaborate on textbooks; the professors involved may demand extra payment for such work, which is fine, and could be rolled into tuition as a "textbook fee."<br> <br>

It is not like there is no potential solution to the problems you outlined.  Resistance to a new model will be very strong, given the power that the movie, TV, music, and publishing industries currently wield and the fact that these industries spread their propaganda from elementary schools to colleges, attach their message to movies and insert it into TV commercials.  The new model may never come to be, since so many people are raised with the message that there is only one distribution model and that deviating from that model is the moral equivalent of theft, kidnapping, and murder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Their works are no longer viable .
" No , the old model of distributing their works is no longer viable , because of computers and the Internet .
At one time , artists of all sorts could rely on the fact that producing a copy of their works required significant effort and money as the vehicle for their profits .
Now , things have changed : computers can create perfect copies ( or nearly perfect ) of a given work in an instant , and such copies can be passed between computers very rapidly using the Internet , and with little effort on the part of the computer 's users .
Nothing , no amount of legal maneuvering , no amount of lobbying , no amount of propaganda or fear mongering or restriction technologies can change that fundamental fact about computers or the Internet .
What artists should do is adopt a new model of distribution .
For authors , this means abandoning the publishing industry altogether , which is not necessary in an age of instant and perfect copying .
For fiction writers , stories should not be released all at once , but one chapter at a time , with the requirement for the next chapter 's release being a certain minimum number of payments ; each chapter should include instructions for payment at the end , with a note about the conditions for releasing the next chapter ( there is nothing in the " pirate " culture that should compel people to remove such information ) .
For textbooks , this means a very radical shift away from the for-profit textbook publishing model , and towards a model where universities have their best professors take some time away from teaching to collaborate on textbooks ; the professors involved may demand extra payment for such work , which is fine , and could be rolled into tuition as a " textbook fee .
" It is not like there is no potential solution to the problems you outlined .
Resistance to a new model will be very strong , given the power that the movie , TV , music , and publishing industries currently wield and the fact that these industries spread their propaganda from elementary schools to colleges , attach their message to movies and insert it into TV commercials .
The new model may never come to be , since so many people are raised with the message that there is only one distribution model and that deviating from that model is the moral equivalent of theft , kidnapping , and murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Their works are no longer viable.
" 

No, the old model of distributing their works is no longer viable, because of computers and the Internet.
At one time, artists of all sorts could rely on the fact that producing a copy of their works required significant effort and money as the vehicle for their profits.
Now, things have changed:  computers can create perfect copies (or nearly perfect) of a given work in an instant, and such copies can be passed between computers very rapidly using the Internet, and with little effort on the part of the computer's users.
Nothing, no amount of legal maneuvering, no amount of lobbying, no amount of propaganda or fear mongering or restriction technologies can change that fundamental fact about computers or the Internet.
What artists should do is adopt a new model of distribution.
For authors, this means abandoning the publishing industry altogether, which is not necessary in an age of instant and perfect copying.
For fiction writers, stories should not be released all at once, but one chapter at a time, with the requirement for the next chapter's release being a certain minimum number of payments; each chapter should include instructions for payment at the end, with a note about the conditions for releasing the next chapter (there is nothing in the "pirate" culture that should compel people to remove such information).
For textbooks, this means a very radical shift away from the for-profit textbook publishing model, and towards a model where universities have their best professors take some time away from teaching to collaborate on textbooks; the professors involved may demand extra payment for such work, which is fine, and could be rolled into tuition as a "textbook fee.
" 

It is not like there is no potential solution to the problems you outlined.
Resistance to a new model will be very strong, given the power that the movie, TV, music, and publishing industries currently wield and the fact that these industries spread their propaganda from elementary schools to colleges, attach their message to movies and insert it into TV commercials.
The new model may never come to be, since so many people are raised with the message that there is only one distribution model and that deviating from that model is the moral equivalent of theft, kidnapping, and murder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622946</id>
	<title>Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I trespass on your property and build something from your materials, I don't own the result, even though it's "my" creation. Buf if I design something, then I can legally prevent you from building that thing out of your own property; in effect, I usurp some of your (and everyone else on the planet's) property rights.

</p><p>Your main argument seems to be that because someone put a lot of work into something, he is entitled to get money for it. Why did he put a lot of work into something in the first place? Perhaps because he knew he had this artificial scarcity and taxpayer-funded policing of people. OK, but that doesn't give us a reason for having it in the first place, before anyone was expecting such policing.

</p><p>It seems the only justification is "because we haven't come up with another model to fund the large initial investment in creating a design". I think initially people accepted this, because the monopoly was of a fairly short duration, short enough that it was worth the benefit of this new funding model. But that's long gone, and the public domain has been shafted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I trespass on your property and build something from your materials , I do n't own the result , even though it 's " my " creation .
Buf if I design something , then I can legally prevent you from building that thing out of your own property ; in effect , I usurp some of your ( and everyone else on the planet 's ) property rights .
Your main argument seems to be that because someone put a lot of work into something , he is entitled to get money for it .
Why did he put a lot of work into something in the first place ?
Perhaps because he knew he had this artificial scarcity and taxpayer-funded policing of people .
OK , but that does n't give us a reason for having it in the first place , before anyone was expecting such policing .
It seems the only justification is " because we have n't come up with another model to fund the large initial investment in creating a design " .
I think initially people accepted this , because the monopoly was of a fairly short duration , short enough that it was worth the benefit of this new funding model .
But that 's long gone , and the public domain has been shafted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I trespass on your property and build something from your materials, I don't own the result, even though it's "my" creation.
Buf if I design something, then I can legally prevent you from building that thing out of your own property; in effect, I usurp some of your (and everyone else on the planet's) property rights.
Your main argument seems to be that because someone put a lot of work into something, he is entitled to get money for it.
Why did he put a lot of work into something in the first place?
Perhaps because he knew he had this artificial scarcity and taxpayer-funded policing of people.
OK, but that doesn't give us a reason for having it in the first place, before anyone was expecting such policing.
It seems the only justification is "because we haven't come up with another model to fund the large initial investment in creating a design".
I think initially people accepted this, because the monopoly was of a fairly short duration, short enough that it was worth the benefit of this new funding model.
But that's long gone, and the public domain has been shafted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625860</id>
	<title>stupid statistics</title>
	<author>smisle</author>
	<datestamp>1262425500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers</i> </p><p>Was that before or after they bought a Kindle?  I'll bet you the type of people who would buy an ebook reader in the first place were already much more likely to buy books than other customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers Was that before or after they bought a Kindle ?
I 'll bet you the type of people who would buy an ebook reader in the first place were already much more likely to buy books than other customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers Was that before or after they bought a Kindle?
I'll bet you the type of people who would buy an ebook reader in the first place were already much more likely to buy books than other customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629420</id>
	<title>Re:public confusion over the term "open source"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Unfortunately the average person has very little idea what the term "open source" actually means. It's a technical term that's vague to them.</i></p><p>Considering that the majority of slashdot editors and readers don't know the difference between the words "copyright" "patent" and "trademark" (or "loose" and "lose" come to think of it), I think you are being harsh on the author.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the average person has very little idea what the term " open source " actually means .
It 's a technical term that 's vague to them.Considering that the majority of slashdot editors and readers do n't know the difference between the words " copyright " " patent " and " trademark " ( or " loose " and " lose " come to think of it ) , I think you are being harsh on the author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the average person has very little idea what the term "open source" actually means.
It's a technical term that's vague to them.Considering that the majority of slashdot editors and readers don't know the difference between the words "copyright" "patent" and "trademark" (or "loose" and "lose" come to think of it), I think you are being harsh on the author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623206</id>
	<title>Re:Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the negro culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership &mdash; of artistic ownership &mdash; goes away. It terrifies me.</p><p>P.S. By "negro" I mean "peer-to-peer". I was just tossing terms around and expecting ya'll to come up with something profound for yourselves. Hope I didn't offend anyone. And if I did, who care about some damn negros, anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the negro culture on the Internet , the idea of ownership    of artistic ownership    goes away .
It terrifies me.P.S .
By " negro " I mean " peer-to-peer " .
I was just tossing terms around and expecting ya 'll to come up with something profound for yourselves .
Hope I did n't offend anyone .
And if I did , who care about some damn negros , anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the negro culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership — of artistic ownership — goes away.
It terrifies me.P.S.
By "negro" I mean "peer-to-peer".
I was just tossing terms around and expecting ya'll to come up with something profound for yourselves.
Hope I didn't offend anyone.
And if I did, who care about some damn negros, anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624584</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Zontar The Mindless</author>
	<datestamp>1262461200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as someone who's made his living as a writer for the last 10+ years, I'd like to say that your comment is exactly what I'd expect from a knothead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as someone who 's made his living as a writer for the last 10 + years , I 'd like to say that your comment is exactly what I 'd expect from a knothead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as someone who's made his living as a writer for the last 10+ years, I'd like to say that your comment is exactly what I'd expect from a knothead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622586</id>
	<title>I Will Not Buy Bound Books...</title>
	<author>rshol</author>
	<datestamp>1262450280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because I prefer the convenience of electronic purchasing (vs. going to the store or ordering on line and waiting for delivery) and reading (my books are on my iPhone and always with me).  I have never pirated a book either electronically or with a copy machine.  If authors wish to sell to me they had better have their books in electronic format.  I suspect I am not alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because I prefer the convenience of electronic purchasing ( vs. going to the store or ordering on line and waiting for delivery ) and reading ( my books are on my iPhone and always with me ) .
I have never pirated a book either electronically or with a copy machine .
If authors wish to sell to me they had better have their books in electronic format .
I suspect I am not alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because I prefer the convenience of electronic purchasing (vs. going to the store or ordering on line and waiting for delivery) and reading (my books are on my iPhone and always with me).
I have never pirated a book either electronically or with a copy machine.
If authors wish to sell to me they had better have their books in electronic format.
I suspect I am not alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623550</id>
	<title>Re:Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree 100\%. This person has no idea whatsoever what the opensource community is. Open source refers to free software which allows you to view the source code and modify it. Open source has no relevance to e Books whatsoever. What kind of code does a book have to make open? This person really means P2P or filesharing and should really have done their research before making a statement like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % .
This person has no idea whatsoever what the opensource community is .
Open source refers to free software which allows you to view the source code and modify it .
Open source has no relevance to e Books whatsoever .
What kind of code does a book have to make open ?
This person really means P2P or filesharing and should really have done their research before making a statement like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\%.
This person has no idea whatsoever what the opensource community is.
Open source refers to free software which allows you to view the source code and modify it.
Open source has no relevance to e Books whatsoever.
What kind of code does a book have to make open?
This person really means P2P or filesharing and should really have done their research before making a statement like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622846</id>
	<title>Re:If the formula is flawed the result means nothi</title>
	<author>teg</author>
	<datestamp>1262451960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>As usual this person makes the very false assumption that 100,000 downloads equals 100,000 lost sales, when in reality it is more likely that close to 100,000 people who would have never bought the book are now reading Dan Brown when they never would have otherwise. This will most likely result in increased sales for Dan Brown (....)</i> </p><p>
First of all, the author doesn't make that assumption.  With that said - I think everyone realizes that 100 000 downloads do not equal 100 000 lost sales. However, I think everyone also realizes that some of these are lost sales. 100? 1000? 10 000? Noone will ever know for sure.  And I do not believe that the "this will most likely result in increased sales for Dan Brown" will apply at all... it is just someone trying to justify their illegal downloads. The reasons I believe this are:

</p><ul>
<li>Dan Brown doesn't sell other products, so one can't say that he'll sell concert tickets, t-shirts etc instead</li><li>Dan Brown doesn't need extra exposure. He's not an unknown, struggling band/artist/writer noone has heard of.</li></ul><p>

For unknown bands, bands on tour (not the top ones, as everything will be sol out anyway) etc, some illegal downloads might help. But for the top artists, movies, authors etc, this is nothing but a loss (the size of which is not "X illegal copies times RRP")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual this person makes the very false assumption that 100,000 downloads equals 100,000 lost sales , when in reality it is more likely that close to 100,000 people who would have never bought the book are now reading Dan Brown when they never would have otherwise .
This will most likely result in increased sales for Dan Brown ( .... ) First of all , the author does n't make that assumption .
With that said - I think everyone realizes that 100 000 downloads do not equal 100 000 lost sales .
However , I think everyone also realizes that some of these are lost sales .
100 ? 1000 ?
10 000 ?
Noone will ever know for sure .
And I do not believe that the " this will most likely result in increased sales for Dan Brown " will apply at all... it is just someone trying to justify their illegal downloads .
The reasons I believe this are : Dan Brown does n't sell other products , so one ca n't say that he 'll sell concert tickets , t-shirts etc insteadDan Brown does n't need extra exposure .
He 's not an unknown , struggling band/artist/writer noone has heard of .
For unknown bands , bands on tour ( not the top ones , as everything will be sol out anyway ) etc , some illegal downloads might help .
But for the top artists , movies , authors etc , this is nothing but a loss ( the size of which is not " X illegal copies times RRP " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As usual this person makes the very false assumption that 100,000 downloads equals 100,000 lost sales, when in reality it is more likely that close to 100,000 people who would have never bought the book are now reading Dan Brown when they never would have otherwise.
This will most likely result in increased sales for Dan Brown (....) 
First of all, the author doesn't make that assumption.
With that said - I think everyone realizes that 100 000 downloads do not equal 100 000 lost sales.
However, I think everyone also realizes that some of these are lost sales.
100? 1000?
10 000?
Noone will ever know for sure.
And I do not believe that the "this will most likely result in increased sales for Dan Brown" will apply at all... it is just someone trying to justify their illegal downloads.
The reasons I believe this are:


Dan Brown doesn't sell other products, so one can't say that he'll sell concert tickets, t-shirts etc insteadDan Brown doesn't need extra exposure.
He's not an unknown, struggling band/artist/writer noone has heard of.
For unknown bands, bands on tour (not the top ones, as everything will be sol out anyway) etc, some illegal downloads might help.
But for the top artists, movies, authors etc, this is nothing but a loss (the size of which is not "X illegal copies times RRP")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622266</id>
	<title>I blame Ford</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262447760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..for bank robberies.  Lets pass a bunch of laws making it illegal to drive, then banks will be safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..for bank robberies .
Lets pass a bunch of laws making it illegal to drive , then banks will be safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..for bank robberies.
Lets pass a bunch of laws making it illegal to drive, then banks will be safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624356</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262459700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's simple: don't offer your unfounded opinion.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Also, making them "more" digitized doesn't matter.</p></div><p>It's simple: don't use <a href="http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/" title="unnecessaryquotes.com" rel="nofollow">"unnecessary"</a> [unnecessaryquotes.com] quotes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple : do n't offer your unfounded opinion .
... Also , making them " more " digitized does n't matter.It 's simple : do n't use " unnecessary " [ unnecessaryquotes.com ] quotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple: don't offer your unfounded opinion.
... Also, making them "more" digitized doesn't matter.It's simple: don't use "unnecessary" [unnecessaryquotes.com] quotes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622664</id>
	<title>Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy seems to be in the business of making money, instead of the business of writing. Writing is just a tool, money is the end. Hence, his opinion, however undocumented it may be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy seems to be in the business of making money , instead of the business of writing .
Writing is just a tool , money is the end .
Hence , his opinion , however undocumented it may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy seems to be in the business of making money, instead of the business of writing.
Writing is just a tool, money is the end.
Hence, his opinion, however undocumented it may be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623608</id>
	<title>Re:BZZZZT WRONG</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1262455860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc. requires attribution, and even pirates don't bother removing credits. Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.</em></p><p>There's another angle to this. In spite of how open source rules are meant to give credit to pieces of source code that are copied into a new programm, these rules may well be inadequate for literary or artistic open source. If I wanted to write an open source novel and use a little wording from 7 or 17 other open source novels, what am I going to do to give credit, especially if the other open source books were already 5 levels deep? There is even a raging debate as to whether Shakespeare was entirely original, but only his name survived so far as the layman is concerned if there was any plagiarism.</p><p>With so many books and so little time, it is open source that may bring salvation to artistic ownership though. If authors submit all their works to be digitized, including the <em>time of origin</em>, and then if anyone wanted to claim artistic triumph of an elegant substring, the search engine will be the judge. Open source might technically not bring direct deposit from royalties, but it could prove over the eons who laid the foundation to particular creative areas. Possibly, good authors or artists will find lucrative sponsorships. Also, a pool of money can be used to pay for good works, polls can be used to determine how to allocate the money. For example, the player software can report how many times a user opened a particular document, search engines can report on the number of requests and hits, etc.</p><p>We all love our entertainment and leisure, and there are those who love to entertain. There is fear in both parties: technology should bring more affordable entertainment and knowledge. Creative work should be compensated in proportion to the value and number of beneficiaries. This is not as hard a problem as it seems. The administrative grunt work for supporting creative work and the technology for distributing creative output just has to adjust to the new era where a Library of Congress of back-breaking books fits into highly accessible media with the physical measurements of a ham sandwich. If the technical world has come so far, why not let it find solutions for the fears of the artists as well as the fears of the users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc .
requires attribution , and even pirates do n't bother removing credits .
Your 'artistic ownership ' goes nowhere.There 's another angle to this .
In spite of how open source rules are meant to give credit to pieces of source code that are copied into a new programm , these rules may well be inadequate for literary or artistic open source .
If I wanted to write an open source novel and use a little wording from 7 or 17 other open source novels , what am I going to do to give credit , especially if the other open source books were already 5 levels deep ?
There is even a raging debate as to whether Shakespeare was entirely original , but only his name survived so far as the layman is concerned if there was any plagiarism.With so many books and so little time , it is open source that may bring salvation to artistic ownership though .
If authors submit all their works to be digitized , including the time of origin , and then if anyone wanted to claim artistic triumph of an elegant substring , the search engine will be the judge .
Open source might technically not bring direct deposit from royalties , but it could prove over the eons who laid the foundation to particular creative areas .
Possibly , good authors or artists will find lucrative sponsorships .
Also , a pool of money can be used to pay for good works , polls can be used to determine how to allocate the money .
For example , the player software can report how many times a user opened a particular document , search engines can report on the number of requests and hits , etc.We all love our entertainment and leisure , and there are those who love to entertain .
There is fear in both parties : technology should bring more affordable entertainment and knowledge .
Creative work should be compensated in proportion to the value and number of beneficiaries .
This is not as hard a problem as it seems .
The administrative grunt work for supporting creative work and the technology for distributing creative output just has to adjust to the new era where a Library of Congress of back-breaking books fits into highly accessible media with the physical measurements of a ham sandwich .
If the technical world has come so far , why not let it find solutions for the fears of the artists as well as the fears of the users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc.
requires attribution, and even pirates don't bother removing credits.
Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.There's another angle to this.
In spite of how open source rules are meant to give credit to pieces of source code that are copied into a new programm, these rules may well be inadequate for literary or artistic open source.
If I wanted to write an open source novel and use a little wording from 7 or 17 other open source novels, what am I going to do to give credit, especially if the other open source books were already 5 levels deep?
There is even a raging debate as to whether Shakespeare was entirely original, but only his name survived so far as the layman is concerned if there was any plagiarism.With so many books and so little time, it is open source that may bring salvation to artistic ownership though.
If authors submit all their works to be digitized, including the time of origin, and then if anyone wanted to claim artistic triumph of an elegant substring, the search engine will be the judge.
Open source might technically not bring direct deposit from royalties, but it could prove over the eons who laid the foundation to particular creative areas.
Possibly, good authors or artists will find lucrative sponsorships.
Also, a pool of money can be used to pay for good works, polls can be used to determine how to allocate the money.
For example, the player software can report how many times a user opened a particular document, search engines can report on the number of requests and hits, etc.We all love our entertainment and leisure, and there are those who love to entertain.
There is fear in both parties: technology should bring more affordable entertainment and knowledge.
Creative work should be compensated in proportion to the value and number of beneficiaries.
This is not as hard a problem as it seems.
The administrative grunt work for supporting creative work and the technology for distributing creative output just has to adjust to the new era where a Library of Congress of back-breaking books fits into highly accessible media with the physical measurements of a ham sandwich.
If the technical world has come so far, why not let it find solutions for the fears of the artists as well as the fears of the users?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627456</id>
	<title>Re:The "hobbyist art is good enough" argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262435760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. The idea that art would not exist without payment is a myth perpetuated by those currently receiving the payments (a fair proportion of which contribute nothing to the creative process itself).</p><p>Also, I have seen the popular music charts - would depriving the "artists" who comprise this sorry list their auto-tune machines really be such a bad idea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
The idea that art would not exist without payment is a myth perpetuated by those currently receiving the payments ( a fair proportion of which contribute nothing to the creative process itself ) .Also , I have seen the popular music charts - would depriving the " artists " who comprise this sorry list their auto-tune machines really be such a bad idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
The idea that art would not exist without payment is a myth perpetuated by those currently receiving the payments (a fair proportion of which contribute nothing to the creative process itself).Also, I have seen the popular music charts - would depriving the "artists" who comprise this sorry list their auto-tune machines really be such a bad idea?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624492</id>
	<title>E-Book readers are piracy</title>
	<author>williambbertram</author>
	<datestamp>1262460600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I buy used paperbacks at the local book store for $3.00 - $5.00.  An e-book reader costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $300.00, and the Kindle books run $5 - $10.00 (or more) on Amazon.  In my opinion, adding this much expense to reading is a perfect example of price gouging.  I put price gougers in the same category as pirates.</p><p>I would also ask Mr. Frisch how he feels about libraries, used book stores, and people who give read books to family and freinds?  My opinion is that all three of these practices are perfectly legal, and socially acceptable, yet no royalties are passed on to the author.  Authors have never, and will never receive a royalty for each copy of their work.  I would also guess that since digital books cannot be resold in used book stores, checked out from the library, or given to friends after reading (I'm assuming DRM attempts to prevent this), that authors would receive a higher percentage of royalties on digital books.</p><p>Based on the people I know who read, books are less of a target for piracy.  I do not know one single person who reads on a regular basis, and also has the skill set or desire to pirate e-books.</p><p>Even if e-books are being pirated, shouldn't the blame rest squarely on the DRM?  It's common knowledge that many types of  encryption have been cracked, so only a fool would put trust in such a faulty mechanism, right?  The commonly known reality is that any copyrighted electronic work stands a very high chance of being pirated, encryption or no, so why aren't the E-Book vendors held accountable for distributing copyrighted material with faulty copy protection?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I buy used paperbacks at the local book store for $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 .
An e-book reader costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 300.00 , and the Kindle books run $ 5 - $ 10.00 ( or more ) on Amazon .
In my opinion , adding this much expense to reading is a perfect example of price gouging .
I put price gougers in the same category as pirates.I would also ask Mr. Frisch how he feels about libraries , used book stores , and people who give read books to family and freinds ?
My opinion is that all three of these practices are perfectly legal , and socially acceptable , yet no royalties are passed on to the author .
Authors have never , and will never receive a royalty for each copy of their work .
I would also guess that since digital books can not be resold in used book stores , checked out from the library , or given to friends after reading ( I 'm assuming DRM attempts to prevent this ) , that authors would receive a higher percentage of royalties on digital books.Based on the people I know who read , books are less of a target for piracy .
I do not know one single person who reads on a regular basis , and also has the skill set or desire to pirate e-books.Even if e-books are being pirated , should n't the blame rest squarely on the DRM ?
It 's common knowledge that many types of encryption have been cracked , so only a fool would put trust in such a faulty mechanism , right ?
The commonly known reality is that any copyrighted electronic work stands a very high chance of being pirated , encryption or no , so why are n't the E-Book vendors held accountable for distributing copyrighted material with faulty copy protection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I buy used paperbacks at the local book store for $3.00 - $5.00.
An e-book reader costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $300.00, and the Kindle books run $5 - $10.00 (or more) on Amazon.
In my opinion, adding this much expense to reading is a perfect example of price gouging.
I put price gougers in the same category as pirates.I would also ask Mr. Frisch how he feels about libraries, used book stores, and people who give read books to family and freinds?
My opinion is that all three of these practices are perfectly legal, and socially acceptable, yet no royalties are passed on to the author.
Authors have never, and will never receive a royalty for each copy of their work.
I would also guess that since digital books cannot be resold in used book stores, checked out from the library, or given to friends after reading (I'm assuming DRM attempts to prevent this), that authors would receive a higher percentage of royalties on digital books.Based on the people I know who read, books are less of a target for piracy.
I do not know one single person who reads on a regular basis, and also has the skill set or desire to pirate e-books.Even if e-books are being pirated, shouldn't the blame rest squarely on the DRM?
It's common knowledge that many types of  encryption have been cracked, so only a fool would put trust in such a faulty mechanism, right?
The commonly known reality is that any copyrighted electronic work stands a very high chance of being pirated, encryption or no, so why aren't the E-Book vendors held accountable for distributing copyrighted material with faulty copy protection?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624352</id>
	<title>bad conclusion from statistics</title>
	<author>Artifex</author>
	<datestamp>1262459640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes. Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers."</i></p><p>If you have a Kindle reader, you mostly <i>have</i> to buy your paid-content from Amazon -- there's not a lot of alternate choice. Whereas the fact that I may have bought four books from them in hardcover last year tells them nothing about the three dozen I may have bought from Barnes &amp; Noble, Borders, Powell's, etc. in the same time period. This is not a legitimate extrapolation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes .
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
" If you have a Kindle reader , you mostly have to buy your paid-content from Amazon -- there 's not a lot of alternate choice .
Whereas the fact that I may have bought four books from them in hardcover last year tells them nothing about the three dozen I may have bought from Barnes &amp; Noble , Borders , Powell 's , etc .
in the same time period .
This is not a legitimate extrapolation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes.
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
"If you have a Kindle reader, you mostly have to buy your paid-content from Amazon -- there's not a lot of alternate choice.
Whereas the fact that I may have bought four books from them in hardcover last year tells them nothing about the three dozen I may have bought from Barnes &amp; Noble, Borders, Powell's, etc.
in the same time period.
This is not a legitimate extrapolation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</id>
	<title>What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262446680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>from someone that doesn't understand technology?</htmltext>
<tokenext>from someone that does n't understand technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from someone that doesn't understand technology?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622276</id>
	<title>He blames piracy on open source culture yet</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1262447880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he keeps on using internet for everything. he doesnt object to being linked in forums/content sites using open source scripts for their engine, he doesnt object to using google, which not only uses numerous open source elements to power its operation but also provides open source back to the community, he probably is thrilled when someone gets to buy his books by finding him the through the searches google provides, and many many more.</p><p>well, see, mr novelist, apparently you either dont know zit on what you are writing about, or just one of those who want everything self-centric.</p><p>if you want to prove otherwise, drop your usage of ANYthing that includes open source. including google, any and all links it provides to your novels/ebooks, any potential traffic/sales you get from forums/sites using phpbb and the similar open source engines. and then lets talk. else, youre just another bastard to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he keeps on using internet for everything .
he doesnt object to being linked in forums/content sites using open source scripts for their engine , he doesnt object to using google , which not only uses numerous open source elements to power its operation but also provides open source back to the community , he probably is thrilled when someone gets to buy his books by finding him the through the searches google provides , and many many more.well , see , mr novelist , apparently you either dont know zit on what you are writing about , or just one of those who want everything self-centric.if you want to prove otherwise , drop your usage of ANYthing that includes open source .
including google , any and all links it provides to your novels/ebooks , any potential traffic/sales you get from forums/sites using phpbb and the similar open source engines .
and then lets talk .
else , youre just another bastard to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he keeps on using internet for everything.
he doesnt object to being linked in forums/content sites using open source scripts for their engine, he doesnt object to using google, which not only uses numerous open source elements to power its operation but also provides open source back to the community, he probably is thrilled when someone gets to buy his books by finding him the through the searches google provides, and many many more.well, see, mr novelist, apparently you either dont know zit on what you are writing about, or just one of those who want everything self-centric.if you want to prove otherwise, drop your usage of ANYthing that includes open source.
including google, any and all links it provides to your novels/ebooks, any potential traffic/sales you get from forums/sites using phpbb and the similar open source engines.
and then lets talk.
else, youre just another bastard to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622194</id>
	<title>sounds familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262447280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds Familiar, just like when people complain that the publishing industry has become like the movie industry, controlled by a select few.<br>like when people complain that books cost too much.  sound familiar,,,,.<br>too many writers are having to turn to self publishing because the publishing industry is trying to play OPEC/MPAA.</p><p>when my favorite writers put out a book i buy it.  they just don't as often as i'd like and the new writers that are getting fronted i'm not impressed by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds Familiar , just like when people complain that the publishing industry has become like the movie industry , controlled by a select few.like when people complain that books cost too much .
sound familiar,,,,.too many writers are having to turn to self publishing because the publishing industry is trying to play OPEC/MPAA.when my favorite writers put out a book i buy it .
they just do n't as often as i 'd like and the new writers that are getting fronted i 'm not impressed by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds Familiar, just like when people complain that the publishing industry has become like the movie industry, controlled by a select few.like when people complain that books cost too much.
sound familiar,,,,.too many writers are having to turn to self publishing because the publishing industry is trying to play OPEC/MPAA.when my favorite writers put out a book i buy it.
they just don't as often as i'd like and the new writers that are getting fronted i'm not impressed by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</id>
	<title>Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262447160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's really no critique of open source here.  He said "open source," but he's just throwing the term around without knowing what "open source culture" is.  He clearly means something along the lines of "peer-to-peer" culture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's really no critique of open source here .
He said " open source , " but he 's just throwing the term around without knowing what " open source culture " is .
He clearly means something along the lines of " peer-to-peer " culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's really no critique of open source here.
He said "open source," but he's just throwing the term around without knowing what "open source culture" is.
He clearly means something along the lines of "peer-to-peer" culture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622866</id>
	<title>Not Open Source but attitudes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the "why should I have to pay for it" attitude that creates piracy. The common rational is anything that is digitized or even can be digitized should be free and if they pay it's strictly for the cost of the CD or DVD. It's kind of like saying if I buy a car I just want to pay for parts and assembly but not designing the car. Or with drug companies I'll pay for the actual cost of producing the drug but not for the research involved in creating and testing the drug. A nice idea but the end result would be no new cars and no new drugs. Perfectly happy with the current stock so why expand? Where should we have stopped? With cars the Model T and with medicine leeches and blood letting? Innovations cost money and new media whether novel, music or movies cost money to produce. It's not all about distribution costs which most seem to want to reduce it to. We've already seen a drastic reduction in new material, fewer studio films and the record labels mostly back top stars. Hey all that wonderful free stuff on the net! Personally I haven't found more than a couple of new groups worth listening to in the last ten years and most of the no budget video films are unwatchable crap. I can count on one hand the exceptions and have several fingers left over. Most novelist spend 6 to 12 months working on a novel when you include rewrites and revisions. Three months would be extremely fast and I know few decent writers that can pull it off for anything more than 250 to 350 pages. Can you aford to work for 6 months of the year for free? How about 12 months? Also editors cost money and so does artwork. Novels are actually a good bargain if you wait for paperbacks. Add up the time it takes you to read one and it's a far better dollar value than movies or video games. Even hard covers are better dollar for hour. There has to be a middle ground between over charging and paying nothing. If it can't be found then we face a bleak future of less and less entertainment where youtube is the height of entertainment and all the good movies have been made and all the good books have been written. I can get by watching classic movies and reading classic books. It's the tweens' that will suffer from not having a new Twilight novel or the next Harry Potter. Scifi films have used this analogy from Omega Man to 28 Days Later of no more new films being made resulting after an end of civilization. We could see that happen without the world or civilization coming to an end. It simply isn't possible to make money at it any longer so they give up. Also all these people doing it for free trust me are doing it in part hoping to be discovered so they can make a living at it. Take away that incentive and most won't even try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the " why should I have to pay for it " attitude that creates piracy .
The common rational is anything that is digitized or even can be digitized should be free and if they pay it 's strictly for the cost of the CD or DVD .
It 's kind of like saying if I buy a car I just want to pay for parts and assembly but not designing the car .
Or with drug companies I 'll pay for the actual cost of producing the drug but not for the research involved in creating and testing the drug .
A nice idea but the end result would be no new cars and no new drugs .
Perfectly happy with the current stock so why expand ?
Where should we have stopped ?
With cars the Model T and with medicine leeches and blood letting ?
Innovations cost money and new media whether novel , music or movies cost money to produce .
It 's not all about distribution costs which most seem to want to reduce it to .
We 've already seen a drastic reduction in new material , fewer studio films and the record labels mostly back top stars .
Hey all that wonderful free stuff on the net !
Personally I have n't found more than a couple of new groups worth listening to in the last ten years and most of the no budget video films are unwatchable crap .
I can count on one hand the exceptions and have several fingers left over .
Most novelist spend 6 to 12 months working on a novel when you include rewrites and revisions .
Three months would be extremely fast and I know few decent writers that can pull it off for anything more than 250 to 350 pages .
Can you aford to work for 6 months of the year for free ?
How about 12 months ?
Also editors cost money and so does artwork .
Novels are actually a good bargain if you wait for paperbacks .
Add up the time it takes you to read one and it 's a far better dollar value than movies or video games .
Even hard covers are better dollar for hour .
There has to be a middle ground between over charging and paying nothing .
If it ca n't be found then we face a bleak future of less and less entertainment where youtube is the height of entertainment and all the good movies have been made and all the good books have been written .
I can get by watching classic movies and reading classic books .
It 's the tweens ' that will suffer from not having a new Twilight novel or the next Harry Potter .
Scifi films have used this analogy from Omega Man to 28 Days Later of no more new films being made resulting after an end of civilization .
We could see that happen without the world or civilization coming to an end .
It simply is n't possible to make money at it any longer so they give up .
Also all these people doing it for free trust me are doing it in part hoping to be discovered so they can make a living at it .
Take away that incentive and most wo n't even try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the "why should I have to pay for it" attitude that creates piracy.
The common rational is anything that is digitized or even can be digitized should be free and if they pay it's strictly for the cost of the CD or DVD.
It's kind of like saying if I buy a car I just want to pay for parts and assembly but not designing the car.
Or with drug companies I'll pay for the actual cost of producing the drug but not for the research involved in creating and testing the drug.
A nice idea but the end result would be no new cars and no new drugs.
Perfectly happy with the current stock so why expand?
Where should we have stopped?
With cars the Model T and with medicine leeches and blood letting?
Innovations cost money and new media whether novel, music or movies cost money to produce.
It's not all about distribution costs which most seem to want to reduce it to.
We've already seen a drastic reduction in new material, fewer studio films and the record labels mostly back top stars.
Hey all that wonderful free stuff on the net!
Personally I haven't found more than a couple of new groups worth listening to in the last ten years and most of the no budget video films are unwatchable crap.
I can count on one hand the exceptions and have several fingers left over.
Most novelist spend 6 to 12 months working on a novel when you include rewrites and revisions.
Three months would be extremely fast and I know few decent writers that can pull it off for anything more than 250 to 350 pages.
Can you aford to work for 6 months of the year for free?
How about 12 months?
Also editors cost money and so does artwork.
Novels are actually a good bargain if you wait for paperbacks.
Add up the time it takes you to read one and it's a far better dollar value than movies or video games.
Even hard covers are better dollar for hour.
There has to be a middle ground between over charging and paying nothing.
If it can't be found then we face a bleak future of less and less entertainment where youtube is the height of entertainment and all the good movies have been made and all the good books have been written.
I can get by watching classic movies and reading classic books.
It's the tweens' that will suffer from not having a new Twilight novel or the next Harry Potter.
Scifi films have used this analogy from Omega Man to 28 Days Later of no more new films being made resulting after an end of civilization.
We could see that happen without the world or civilization coming to an end.
It simply isn't possible to make money at it any longer so they give up.
Also all these people doing it for free trust me are doing it in part hoping to be discovered so they can make a living at it.
Take away that incentive and most won't even try.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625018</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>gaspyy</author>
	<datestamp>1262463840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know the story, it was called "The Plant". Actually, Stephen King was rather dissatisfied with the sales and that's why he discontinued it.</p><p>The idea was, you could download one chapter as PDF for free by <em>promising</em> you'll pay for it. My memory is fuzzy (that was when, in '98?) but few people actually kept their promise...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the story , it was called " The Plant " .
Actually , Stephen King was rather dissatisfied with the sales and that 's why he discontinued it.The idea was , you could download one chapter as PDF for free by promising you 'll pay for it .
My memory is fuzzy ( that was when , in '98 ?
) but few people actually kept their promise.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the story, it was called "The Plant".
Actually, Stephen King was rather dissatisfied with the sales and that's why he discontinued it.The idea was, you could download one chapter as PDF for free by promising you'll pay for it.
My memory is fuzzy (that was when, in '98?
) but few people actually kept their promise...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622760</id>
	<title>E-book vs dead-tree</title>
	<author>toppavak</author>
	<datestamp>1262451600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers</p></div><p>Not to mention that we've already <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/27/1316207/Amazon-Sells-More-Ebooks-On-Christmas-Than-Real-Books" title="slashdot.org">discussed</a> [slashdot.org] how Amazon sold more e-books over Christmas than it did physical books. Piracy is killing the publishing industry like its <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/movies/01arts-A106BILLIONY\_BRF.html" title="nytimes.com">killing</a> [nytimes.com] the movie industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customersNot to mention that we 've already discussed [ slashdot.org ] how Amazon sold more e-books over Christmas than it did physical books .
Piracy is killing the publishing industry like its killing [ nytimes.com ] the movie industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customersNot to mention that we've already discussed [slashdot.org] how Amazon sold more e-books over Christmas than it did physical books.
Piracy is killing the publishing industry like its killing [nytimes.com] the movie industry.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627724</id>
	<title>alexie is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262437740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am writing stories and poems and open source is the most important requirement for the software i use. There is nothing in open source that endangers my work as a writer and poet. There are people, who misunderstand open source as being the b ase for piracy. But those people, who steal software or texts or any other work, they just take something to hide their doing behind others so it's not them stealing but a whole community. If there wasen't open source the would take something else. I think of those people stealing microsoft software and telling people that was an act of self defense against the rich.</p><p>cb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am writing stories and poems and open source is the most important requirement for the software i use .
There is nothing in open source that endangers my work as a writer and poet .
There are people , who misunderstand open source as being the b ase for piracy .
But those people , who steal software or texts or any other work , they just take something to hide their doing behind others so it 's not them stealing but a whole community .
If there wase n't open source the would take something else .
I think of those people stealing microsoft software and telling people that was an act of self defense against the rich.cb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am writing stories and poems and open source is the most important requirement for the software i use.
There is nothing in open source that endangers my work as a writer and poet.
There are people, who misunderstand open source as being the b ase for piracy.
But those people, who steal software or texts or any other work, they just take something to hide their doing behind others so it's not them stealing but a whole community.
If there wasen't open source the would take something else.
I think of those people stealing microsoft software and telling people that was an act of self defense against the rich.cb</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30649596</id>
	<title>Fear of losing ownership</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess when the ownership of slaves went away that also frightened a lot of people as well!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess when the ownership of slaves went away that also frightened a lot of people as well ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess when the ownership of slaves went away that also frightened a lot of people as well!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622318</id>
	<title>Newsflash: Open source is voluntary!</title>
	<author>Xaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1262448240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or did I miss the law that proclaims artistic ownership to be illegal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or did I miss the law that proclaims artistic ownership to be illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or did I miss the law that proclaims artistic ownership to be illegal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622304</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The books I respect I buy in hard cover, largely Pratchett and reference books  The ones that will enjoy and read casually I want to carry around I buy in paperback.  If they really wanted to promote sales they would include an electronic copy with the purchase. I don't pirate (really) so there are very few that I have in electronic form.  The ones I have are very largely from Tor.  The ones that I really enjoy I will buy in paperback or hard copy.  Tor publishers have effectively proved that giving books away get them more sales.  Many times I have read a book provided online and then bought the entire series in paperback or hardcover.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The books I respect I buy in hard cover , largely Pratchett and reference books The ones that will enjoy and read casually I want to carry around I buy in paperback .
If they really wanted to promote sales they would include an electronic copy with the purchase .
I do n't pirate ( really ) so there are very few that I have in electronic form .
The ones I have are very largely from Tor .
The ones that I really enjoy I will buy in paperback or hard copy .
Tor publishers have effectively proved that giving books away get them more sales .
Many times I have read a book provided online and then bought the entire series in paperback or hardcover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The books I respect I buy in hard cover, largely Pratchett and reference books  The ones that will enjoy and read casually I want to carry around I buy in paperback.
If they really wanted to promote sales they would include an electronic copy with the purchase.
I don't pirate (really) so there are very few that I have in electronic form.
The ones I have are very largely from Tor.
The ones that I really enjoy I will buy in paperback or hard copy.
Tor publishers have effectively proved that giving books away get them more sales.
Many times I have read a book provided online and then bought the entire series in paperback or hardcover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624296</id>
	<title>Rich people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262459340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, let's say prosperous people: They have always fear about things or just ideas potentially cutting their money. I have to admit, that they are the ones, that really lose more than gain through the open-source movement.</p><p>Unfortunately they are also those most headlines in the news are from. For nearly everyone else --- and therefore the society on the whole --- the open-source movement is a huge benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , let 's say prosperous people : They have always fear about things or just ideas potentially cutting their money .
I have to admit , that they are the ones , that really lose more than gain through the open-source movement.Unfortunately they are also those most headlines in the news are from .
For nearly everyone else --- and therefore the society on the whole --- the open-source movement is a huge benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, let's say prosperous people: They have always fear about things or just ideas potentially cutting their money.
I have to admit, that they are the ones, that really lose more than gain through the open-source movement.Unfortunately they are also those most headlines in the news are from.
For nearly everyone else --- and therefore the society on the whole --- the open-source movement is a huge benefit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30642292</id>
	<title>Casual Piracy is a way of life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262626980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Casual Piracy, what does it mean?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It means for now, you live in the wonderful world of free because of the existence of a capital based market in which the "producer" produced based on the fact that one could eek out a living from such an activity. This capital market based on capitalism is repsonsible for the vast majority of advances that have "enabled" your world to move forward and bring you to where you are now.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Tomorrows world is a Randian nightmare where production will simply be the sole domain of more centralized organizations because large, bureacratic and centralized organizations such as govts etc. will be the only entities to have the means to actually produce and as we all know, it leads to less innovation, creativity and hence freedom.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Ultimately, as you all frequently acknowledge here, centralized power leads to corruption of all things.</p><p>And who is to blame, all of you who think you are entitled.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Sure Open Source is great, if it remains a voluntary moevment but as we all know, it is not and is currently killing the individual producer beyond the large organization you loathe but your too intellectually dishonest to acknowledge. You simply think you are killing the RIAA etc. Your not, your killing far more and to put it more plainly, you are effectively killing your own industries, the very ones you exclaim to be moving forward by legitimizing the business model of FREE dumbasses!</p><p>Free and Socialism only work when it exists in the shadow of capital based markets, it cannot exist otherwise and its only a matter of time until the vine dies.</p><p>Enjoy the demise!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Casual Piracy , what does it mean ?
    It means for now , you live in the wonderful world of free because of the existence of a capital based market in which the " producer " produced based on the fact that one could eek out a living from such an activity .
This capital market based on capitalism is repsonsible for the vast majority of advances that have " enabled " your world to move forward and bring you to where you are now .
    Tomorrows world is a Randian nightmare where production will simply be the sole domain of more centralized organizations because large , bureacratic and centralized organizations such as govts etc .
will be the only entities to have the means to actually produce and as we all know , it leads to less innovation , creativity and hence freedom .
      Ultimately , as you all frequently acknowledge here , centralized power leads to corruption of all things.And who is to blame , all of you who think you are entitled .
      Sure Open Source is great , if it remains a voluntary moevment but as we all know , it is not and is currently killing the individual producer beyond the large organization you loathe but your too intellectually dishonest to acknowledge .
You simply think you are killing the RIAA etc .
Your not , your killing far more and to put it more plainly , you are effectively killing your own industries , the very ones you exclaim to be moving forward by legitimizing the business model of FREE dumbasses ! Free and Socialism only work when it exists in the shadow of capital based markets , it can not exist otherwise and its only a matter of time until the vine dies.Enjoy the demise ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Casual Piracy, what does it mean?
    It means for now, you live in the wonderful world of free because of the existence of a capital based market in which the "producer" produced based on the fact that one could eek out a living from such an activity.
This capital market based on capitalism is repsonsible for the vast majority of advances that have "enabled" your world to move forward and bring you to where you are now.
    Tomorrows world is a Randian nightmare where production will simply be the sole domain of more centralized organizations because large, bureacratic and centralized organizations such as govts etc.
will be the only entities to have the means to actually produce and as we all know, it leads to less innovation, creativity and hence freedom.
      Ultimately, as you all frequently acknowledge here, centralized power leads to corruption of all things.And who is to blame, all of you who think you are entitled.
      Sure Open Source is great, if it remains a voluntary moevment but as we all know, it is not and is currently killing the individual producer beyond the large organization you loathe but your too intellectually dishonest to acknowledge.
You simply think you are killing the RIAA etc.
Your not, your killing far more and to put it more plainly, you are effectively killing your own industries, the very ones you exclaim to be moving forward by legitimizing the business model of FREE dumbasses!Free and Socialism only work when it exists in the shadow of capital based markets, it cannot exist otherwise and its only a matter of time until the vine dies.Enjoy the demise!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590</id>
	<title>So a question for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would you propose as a replacement? See we have an interesting quandary: We like creative works of all sorts. A massive part of our entertainment comes from this and these days we even need it for other things. So we want people to be able to work on "virtual goods" as it were. Well, these people still need to eat. They need physical goods to be able to do their work. That means they need to get paid. So what do you do about that? There is our current system, where we declare virtual goods to work like real goods. You have to pay for each copy you want. This works pretty nicely in a capitalist economy. It encourages people to make works that others want, allows them to support themselves doing so if they are good, gives more rewards the greater the demand for a work is and so on.</p><p>So, let's say you do away with that. You say "Information scarcity is artificial, from now on, all information can be copied freely." Ok, how then do the creators of it eat? What do they do to make money? Their works are no longer viable. This means they have to get other jobs, their creative works can only be a hobby. The "Well just sell support!" that is often parroted for software doesn't work at all in these other areas.</p><p>You run in to the very real problem that we want people to spend their time creating works that are nothing but information. However, if you want them to do that, you need to pay them. So if you want to eliminate the concept of IP and have all information be unrestricted, you've got to come up with a system for how to compensate the people who spend their time making it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would you propose as a replacement ?
See we have an interesting quandary : We like creative works of all sorts .
A massive part of our entertainment comes from this and these days we even need it for other things .
So we want people to be able to work on " virtual goods " as it were .
Well , these people still need to eat .
They need physical goods to be able to do their work .
That means they need to get paid .
So what do you do about that ?
There is our current system , where we declare virtual goods to work like real goods .
You have to pay for each copy you want .
This works pretty nicely in a capitalist economy .
It encourages people to make works that others want , allows them to support themselves doing so if they are good , gives more rewards the greater the demand for a work is and so on.So , let 's say you do away with that .
You say " Information scarcity is artificial , from now on , all information can be copied freely .
" Ok , how then do the creators of it eat ?
What do they do to make money ?
Their works are no longer viable .
This means they have to get other jobs , their creative works can only be a hobby .
The " Well just sell support !
" that is often parroted for software does n't work at all in these other areas.You run in to the very real problem that we want people to spend their time creating works that are nothing but information .
However , if you want them to do that , you need to pay them .
So if you want to eliminate the concept of IP and have all information be unrestricted , you 've got to come up with a system for how to compensate the people who spend their time making it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would you propose as a replacement?
See we have an interesting quandary: We like creative works of all sorts.
A massive part of our entertainment comes from this and these days we even need it for other things.
So we want people to be able to work on "virtual goods" as it were.
Well, these people still need to eat.
They need physical goods to be able to do their work.
That means they need to get paid.
So what do you do about that?
There is our current system, where we declare virtual goods to work like real goods.
You have to pay for each copy you want.
This works pretty nicely in a capitalist economy.
It encourages people to make works that others want, allows them to support themselves doing so if they are good, gives more rewards the greater the demand for a work is and so on.So, let's say you do away with that.
You say "Information scarcity is artificial, from now on, all information can be copied freely.
" Ok, how then do the creators of it eat?
What do they do to make money?
Their works are no longer viable.
This means they have to get other jobs, their creative works can only be a hobby.
The "Well just sell support!
" that is often parroted for software doesn't work at all in these other areas.You run in to the very real problem that we want people to spend their time creating works that are nothing but information.
However, if you want them to do that, you need to pay them.
So if you want to eliminate the concept of IP and have all information be unrestricted, you've got to come up with a system for how to compensate the people who spend their time making it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360</id>
	<title>If the formula is flawed the result means nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Less than 24 hours after its release, pirated digital copies of the novel were found on file-sharing sites such as Rapidshare and BitTorrent. Within days, it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times."</p></div></blockquote><p>As usual this person makes the very false assumption that 100,000 downloads equals 100,000 lost sales, when in reality it is more likely that close to 100,000 people who would have never bought the book are now reading Dan Brown when they never would have otherwise.  This will most likely result in <b>increased</b> sales for Dan Brown in the future as these people ask others <i>"have you read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</i>, and those people who haven't opt to buy the book and read it, just as happens in the music industry.  You can't count someone downloading something they would never have paid for otherwise as a lost sale, and the kind of free advertising they are getting would be otherwise extermely costly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Less than 24 hours after its release , pirated digital copies of the novel were found on file-sharing sites such as Rapidshare and BitTorrent .
Within days , it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times .
" As usual this person makes the very false assumption that 100,000 downloads equals 100,000 lost sales , when in reality it is more likely that close to 100,000 people who would have never bought the book are now reading Dan Brown when they never would have otherwise .
This will most likely result in increased sales for Dan Brown in the future as these people ask others " have you read ... " , and those people who have n't opt to buy the book and read it , just as happens in the music industry .
You ca n't count someone downloading something they would never have paid for otherwise as a lost sale , and the kind of free advertising they are getting would be otherwise extermely costly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Less than 24 hours after its release, pirated digital copies of the novel were found on file-sharing sites such as Rapidshare and BitTorrent.
Within days, it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times.
"As usual this person makes the very false assumption that 100,000 downloads equals 100,000 lost sales, when in reality it is more likely that close to 100,000 people who would have never bought the book are now reading Dan Brown when they never would have otherwise.
This will most likely result in increased sales for Dan Brown in the future as these people ask others "have you read ...", and those people who haven't opt to buy the book and read it, just as happens in the music industry.
You can't count someone downloading something they would never have paid for otherwise as a lost sale, and the kind of free advertising they are getting would be otherwise extermely costly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622558</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262450220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Gibson" title="wikipedia.org">writer who has no idea how technology works</a> [wikipedia.org] you can expect kickass cyberpunk books! If, and only if, he has a good imagination.</p><p>If your books don't sell, don't blame piracy. Blame the books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a writer who has no idea how technology works [ wikipedia.org ] you can expect kickass cyberpunk books !
If , and only if , he has a good imagination.If your books do n't sell , do n't blame piracy .
Blame the books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a writer who has no idea how technology works [wikipedia.org] you can expect kickass cyberpunk books!
If, and only if, he has a good imagination.If your books don't sell, don't blame piracy.
Blame the books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622712</id>
	<title>Re:The real story should be. . .</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1262451360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Many children are terrified of the dark. Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?</p></div></blockquote><p>If my child was terrified of the dark, I'd try to help them conquer their fear and show them the dark is nothing to be afraid of.</p><p>An ignorant novelist (and indeed anyone with a misguided opinion) can also be treated in the same manner. Otherwise, they'll continue to harbor the same hatred and pass on the hatred to others. It's in our best interests to nip it in the bud, particularly if they're influential.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many children are terrified of the dark .
Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something ? If my child was terrified of the dark , I 'd try to help them conquer their fear and show them the dark is nothing to be afraid of.An ignorant novelist ( and indeed anyone with a misguided opinion ) can also be treated in the same manner .
Otherwise , they 'll continue to harbor the same hatred and pass on the hatred to others .
It 's in our best interests to nip it in the bud , particularly if they 're influential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many children are terrified of the dark.
Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?If my child was terrified of the dark, I'd try to help them conquer their fear and show them the dark is nothing to be afraid of.An ignorant novelist (and indeed anyone with a misguided opinion) can also be treated in the same manner.
Otherwise, they'll continue to harbor the same hatred and pass on the hatred to others.
It's in our best interests to nip it in the bud, particularly if they're influential.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622906</id>
	<title>Typical clueless reactionary FUD...</title>
	<author>Just Brew It!</author>
	<datestamp>1262452140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but there really needs to be a higher profile public education campaign to teach the masses that Open Source isn't about <i>piracy</i> (i.e. taking someone's IP without permission); it is about IP that is freely <i>given</i>. The very foundation of the GPL (and other Open Source licenses) is copyright law, and the fact that the legal owner of that IP can give it away (possibly with strings attached).</p><p>The rise of Open Source is completely orthogonal to the piracy issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure I 'm preaching to the choir here , but there really needs to be a higher profile public education campaign to teach the masses that Open Source is n't about piracy ( i.e .
taking someone 's IP without permission ) ; it is about IP that is freely given .
The very foundation of the GPL ( and other Open Source licenses ) is copyright law , and the fact that the legal owner of that IP can give it away ( possibly with strings attached ) .The rise of Open Source is completely orthogonal to the piracy issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but there really needs to be a higher profile public education campaign to teach the masses that Open Source isn't about piracy (i.e.
taking someone's IP without permission); it is about IP that is freely given.
The very foundation of the GPL (and other Open Source licenses) is copyright law, and the fact that the legal owner of that IP can give it away (possibly with strings attached).The rise of Open Source is completely orthogonal to the piracy issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30642936</id>
	<title>Santa is to Blame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open Source is not at all the problem here. IT IS ALL SANTAS FAULT! Just think about it hegives away all those presents for free. IT IS ALL HIS FAULT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source is not at all the problem here .
IT IS ALL SANTAS FAULT !
Just think about it hegives away all those presents for free .
IT IS ALL HIS FAULT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Source is not at all the problem here.
IT IS ALL SANTAS FAULT!
Just think about it hegives away all those presents for free.
IT IS ALL HIS FAULT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624234</id>
	<title>Wrong, no matter which angle you look at it from</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1262458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>Piracy of copyrigbted materials has been going on *far* longer than the Internet itself has existed, so the open source culture could not have been the cause of it.</li>
<li>People who actually care about and in particular contribute to open source, at least in my experience, actually tend to have *MORE* respect for things like copyright than most other people.</li>
<li>And finally, making one's work available for free does *NOT* diminish any intrinsic value that for-pay works have... if fewer people are buying for-pay works because of open source, it logically follows that would be because they are *UTILIZING* freely available works instead of commercial ones, not because they are pirating ones that are not open source.</li>
</ol><p>
At most, one could present the argument that it's not the open source culture, but instead the Internet itself, which by its nature involves sharing, might be to blame by providing everybody with constant access to an enormous quantity of information, and for those that have too little self-control to care whether or not a copyright holder is fairly compensated for any individual copy of something, a ready means with which to satisfy virtually any of their desires for access to it.   Of course, the irony there is that when it's worded like that, you see it's not the technology at all... it's actually just the people.
</p><p>
And again, the people who seem to genuinely care about open source \_don't\_ tend to approve of piracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Piracy of copyrigbted materials has been going on * far * longer than the Internet itself has existed , so the open source culture could not have been the cause of it .
People who actually care about and in particular contribute to open source , at least in my experience , actually tend to have * MORE * respect for things like copyright than most other people .
And finally , making one 's work available for free does * NOT * diminish any intrinsic value that for-pay works have... if fewer people are buying for-pay works because of open source , it logically follows that would be because they are * UTILIZING * freely available works instead of commercial ones , not because they are pirating ones that are not open source .
At most , one could present the argument that it 's not the open source culture , but instead the Internet itself , which by its nature involves sharing , might be to blame by providing everybody with constant access to an enormous quantity of information , and for those that have too little self-control to care whether or not a copyright holder is fairly compensated for any individual copy of something , a ready means with which to satisfy virtually any of their desires for access to it .
Of course , the irony there is that when it 's worded like that , you see it 's not the technology at all... it 's actually just the people .
And again , the people who seem to genuinely care about open source \ _do n't \ _ tend to approve of piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Piracy of copyrigbted materials has been going on *far* longer than the Internet itself has existed, so the open source culture could not have been the cause of it.
People who actually care about and in particular contribute to open source, at least in my experience, actually tend to have *MORE* respect for things like copyright than most other people.
And finally, making one's work available for free does *NOT* diminish any intrinsic value that for-pay works have... if fewer people are buying for-pay works because of open source, it logically follows that would be because they are *UTILIZING* freely available works instead of commercial ones, not because they are pirating ones that are not open source.
At most, one could present the argument that it's not the open source culture, but instead the Internet itself, which by its nature involves sharing, might be to blame by providing everybody with constant access to an enormous quantity of information, and for those that have too little self-control to care whether or not a copyright holder is fairly compensated for any individual copy of something, a ready means with which to satisfy virtually any of their desires for access to it.
Of course, the irony there is that when it's worded like that, you see it's not the technology at all... it's actually just the people.
And again, the people who seem to genuinely care about open source \_don't\_ tend to approve of piracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623532</id>
	<title>Re:BZZZZT WRONG</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc. requires attribution,</p></div><p>That's true - but many Open Source proponents are also proponents of abolishing copyrights and patents, or "imaginary property" as they say. It seems the intellectual property aspects of Open Source are only an intermediate, "necessary evil" for many of them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and even pirates don't bother removing credits.</p></div><p>Really? In my experience, most torrent files of TV shows have the credits removed, all for the sake of saving a few MB/kB. It's one of my pet peeves, actually. If you're distributing someone else's content (and even crediting you own 'scene' group), you could at least acknowledge the people who made the show in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc .
requires attribution,That 's true - but many Open Source proponents are also proponents of abolishing copyrights and patents , or " imaginary property " as they say .
It seems the intellectual property aspects of Open Source are only an intermediate , " necessary evil " for many of them.and even pirates do n't bother removing credits.Really ?
In my experience , most torrent files of TV shows have the credits removed , all for the sake of saving a few MB/kB .
It 's one of my pet peeves , actually .
If you 're distributing someone else 's content ( and even crediting you own 'scene ' group ) , you could at least acknowledge the people who made the show in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc.
requires attribution,That's true - but many Open Source proponents are also proponents of abolishing copyrights and patents, or "imaginary property" as they say.
It seems the intellectual property aspects of Open Source are only an intermediate, "necessary evil" for many of them.and even pirates don't bother removing credits.Really?
In my experience, most torrent files of TV shows have the credits removed, all for the sake of saving a few MB/kB.
It's one of my pet peeves, actually.
If you're distributing someone else's content (and even crediting you own 'scene' group), you could at least acknowledge the people who made the show in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622142</id>
	<title>Poor broadband on the Rez?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262446860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia says much of his writing comes from his experiences growing up on the rez.  Maybe a talk with Cory Doctorow would change his mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia says much of his writing comes from his experiences growing up on the rez .
Maybe a talk with Cory Doctorow would change his mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia says much of his writing comes from his experiences growing up on the rez.
Maybe a talk with Cory Doctorow would change his mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623680</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1262456280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, let's say you do away with that. You say "Information scarcity is artificial, from now on, all information can be copied freely." Ok, how then do the creators of it eat? What do they do to make money?</p></div><p>It depends on the product they make. What kind of moron would try to apply the same model to banking software as they do to rap music?</p><p>Ohh, the creators of copyright, that's who.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let 's say you do away with that .
You say " Information scarcity is artificial , from now on , all information can be copied freely .
" Ok , how then do the creators of it eat ?
What do they do to make money ? It depends on the product they make .
What kind of moron would try to apply the same model to banking software as they do to rap music ? Ohh , the creators of copyright , that 's who .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let's say you do away with that.
You say "Information scarcity is artificial, from now on, all information can be copied freely.
" Ok, how then do the creators of it eat?
What do they do to make money?It depends on the product they make.
What kind of moron would try to apply the same model to banking software as they do to rap music?Ohh, the creators of copyright, that's who.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623004</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just look how iTunes completely stopped selling anything when they started offering non-copy-protected books - oh wait, they didn't.</p></div><p>While not exactly the same; I checked out <a href="http://www.scottsigler.com/" title="scottsigler.com">Scott Sigler
s</a> [scottsigler.com] podcasts of his own novels (for free on his site), since I listened through all of it (and enjoyed it) I decided to buy his books in hardcover to support him. While I would probably have bought them in an e-book format if I could (as in if I had an e-reader and there was a good e-book service), ordering and buying them through my local store was fine and made me feel all warm and cuddly inside from supporting local businesses that I enjoy frequenting.<br> <br>
While e-book piracy might be an issue, my personal opinion on piracy (of all types of content) is that the only way to effectively lessen it is to have good online stores where those with the inclination and economical capacity to do so can legally purchase such articles. Draconian DRM systems does not work, or only works to a very limited extent while making life harder and less enjoyable for those that actually do want to buy their products legally.<br> <br>
As for "artistic ownership" I can not imagine that the "open source culture" imagined by Alexie will ever be able to change laws and general opinion to such an extend that authors/artists lose control of the commercial aspects of their own products (maybe a reduction in copyright length from its current standard at most). It is a great leap, in my mind, from the concept of distributing content created by others to being able to use that material for financial gain without the artists approval. Which is how I interpreted his fears.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look how iTunes completely stopped selling anything when they started offering non-copy-protected books - oh wait , they did n't.While not exactly the same ; I checked out Scott Sigler s [ scottsigler.com ] podcasts of his own novels ( for free on his site ) , since I listened through all of it ( and enjoyed it ) I decided to buy his books in hardcover to support him .
While I would probably have bought them in an e-book format if I could ( as in if I had an e-reader and there was a good e-book service ) , ordering and buying them through my local store was fine and made me feel all warm and cuddly inside from supporting local businesses that I enjoy frequenting .
While e-book piracy might be an issue , my personal opinion on piracy ( of all types of content ) is that the only way to effectively lessen it is to have good online stores where those with the inclination and economical capacity to do so can legally purchase such articles .
Draconian DRM systems does not work , or only works to a very limited extent while making life harder and less enjoyable for those that actually do want to buy their products legally .
As for " artistic ownership " I can not imagine that the " open source culture " imagined by Alexie will ever be able to change laws and general opinion to such an extend that authors/artists lose control of the commercial aspects of their own products ( maybe a reduction in copyright length from its current standard at most ) .
It is a great leap , in my mind , from the concept of distributing content created by others to being able to use that material for financial gain without the artists approval .
Which is how I interpreted his fears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look how iTunes completely stopped selling anything when they started offering non-copy-protected books - oh wait, they didn't.While not exactly the same; I checked out Scott Sigler
s [scottsigler.com] podcasts of his own novels (for free on his site), since I listened through all of it (and enjoyed it) I decided to buy his books in hardcover to support him.
While I would probably have bought them in an e-book format if I could (as in if I had an e-reader and there was a good e-book service), ordering and buying them through my local store was fine and made me feel all warm and cuddly inside from supporting local businesses that I enjoy frequenting.
While e-book piracy might be an issue, my personal opinion on piracy (of all types of content) is that the only way to effectively lessen it is to have good online stores where those with the inclination and economical capacity to do so can legally purchase such articles.
Draconian DRM systems does not work, or only works to a very limited extent while making life harder and less enjoyable for those that actually do want to buy their products legally.
As for "artistic ownership" I can not imagine that the "open source culture" imagined by Alexie will ever be able to change laws and general opinion to such an extend that authors/artists lose control of the commercial aspects of their own products (maybe a reduction in copyright length from its current standard at most).
It is a great leap, in my mind, from the concept of distributing content created by others to being able to use that material for financial gain without the artists approval.
Which is how I interpreted his fears.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622222</id>
	<title>bought 3.1 times as many books.. from Amazon!</title>
	<author>Clover\_Kicker</author>
	<datestamp>1262447520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing ebooks to physical book sales is obviously stupid, because Amazon can't track how many physical books I bought at local chains, or the used shop downtown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing ebooks to physical book sales is obviously stupid , because Amazon ca n't track how many physical books I bought at local chains , or the used shop downtown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing ebooks to physical book sales is obviously stupid, because Amazon can't track how many physical books I bought at local chains, or the used shop downtown.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622926</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't the Library already a way to get books fr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main difference is that a physical book can only be used by one person at a time, whether it is purchased by the reader or borrowed from a library or a friend.</p><p>The situation is comparable to software server licenses that have a maximum number of connections - any number of different people can use the software, but only a fixed number at a time.</p><p>A downloaded work without DRM can be shared with any number of people, if copyright restrictions are ignored (and they often are).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main difference is that a physical book can only be used by one person at a time , whether it is purchased by the reader or borrowed from a library or a friend.The situation is comparable to software server licenses that have a maximum number of connections - any number of different people can use the software , but only a fixed number at a time.A downloaded work without DRM can be shared with any number of people , if copyright restrictions are ignored ( and they often are ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main difference is that a physical book can only be used by one person at a time, whether it is purchased by the reader or borrowed from a library or a friend.The situation is comparable to software server licenses that have a maximum number of connections - any number of different people can use the software, but only a fixed number at a time.A downloaded work without DRM can be shared with any number of people, if copyright restrictions are ignored (and they often are).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622540</id>
	<title>Re:If the formula is flawed the result means nothi</title>
	<author>matthewmacleod</author>
	<datestamp>1262450100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>He didn't make any such assumption. You can't put words into people's mouths then complain that they're wrong!</htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't make any such assumption .
You ca n't put words into people 's mouths then complain that they 're wrong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't make any such assumption.
You can't put words into people's mouths then complain that they're wrong!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623648</id>
	<title>Re:And this is a suprise ?</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1262456100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also consider that when people buy e-books they start buying several books immediately, often stuff they already own in the regular format. It's like how when you buy a Playstation you immediately buy games for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also consider that when people buy e-books they start buying several books immediately , often stuff they already own in the regular format .
It 's like how when you buy a Playstation you immediately buy games for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also consider that when people buy e-books they start buying several books immediately, often stuff they already own in the regular format.
It's like how when you buy a Playstation you immediately buy games for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30634020</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>jabelli</author>
	<datestamp>1262511720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what you failed to note:</p><ol> <li>Printed on the disc label is "This disk and its contents may be copied and shared but NOT sold"</li><li>Multiple, DRM free formats (currently Ebookwise/Rocket, Mobi/Palm/Kindle, EPUB/Stanza, Microsoft, Sony, RTF, HTML) with online HTML and "email to Kindle"</li><li>When they add a new format, you can re-download your books in the new format</li><li>If you buy the e-book version, you can download an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.iso of the accompanying CD</li><li> <a href="http://oberon.zlynx.org/" title="zlynx.org" rel="nofollow">http://oberon.zlynx.org/</a> [zlynx.org]</li> </ol><p>I just got the Baen newsletter, and they have all 7 of Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser on sale for $35.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what you failed to note : Printed on the disc label is " This disk and its contents may be copied and shared but NOT sold " Multiple , DRM free formats ( currently Ebookwise/Rocket , Mobi/Palm/Kindle , EPUB/Stanza , Microsoft , Sony , RTF , HTML ) with online HTML and " email to Kindle " When they add a new format , you can re-download your books in the new formatIf you buy the e-book version , you can download an .iso of the accompanying CD http : //oberon.zlynx.org/ [ zlynx.org ] I just got the Baen newsletter , and they have all 7 of Fritz Leiber 's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser on sale for $ 35 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what you failed to note: Printed on the disc label is "This disk and its contents may be copied and shared but NOT sold"Multiple, DRM free formats (currently Ebookwise/Rocket, Mobi/Palm/Kindle, EPUB/Stanza, Microsoft, Sony, RTF, HTML) with online HTML and "email to Kindle"When they add a new format, you can re-download your books in the new formatIf you buy the e-book version, you can download an .iso of the accompanying CD http://oberon.zlynx.org/ [zlynx.org] I just got the Baen newsletter, and they have all 7 of Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser on sale for $35.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625816</id>
	<title>Pirated from Cory Doctorow because he is right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262425200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There&rsquo;s a dangerous group of anti-copyright activists out there who pose<br>a clear and present danger to the future of authors and publishing. They<br>have no respect for property or laws. What&rsquo;s more, they&rsquo;re powerful and<br>organized, and have the ears of lawmakers and the press.<br>I&rsquo;m speaking, of course, of the legal departments at ebook publishers.<br>These people don&rsquo;t believe in copyright law. Copyright law says that<br>when you buy a book, you own it. You can give it away, you can lend it,<br>you can pass it on to your descendants or donate it to the local homeless<br>shelter. Owning books has been around for longer than publishing books<br>has. Copyright law has alwaysrecognized your right to own your books.<br>When copyright laws are made&mdash;by elected officials, acting for the public<br>good&mdash;they always safeguard this right.<br>But ebook publishers don&rsquo;t respect copyright law, and they don&rsquo;t believe<br>in your right to own property. Instead, they say that when you<br>&ldquo;buy&rdquo; an ebook, you&rsquo;re really only licensing that book, and that copyright<br>law is superseded by the thousands of farcical, abusive words in the license<br>agreement you click through on the way to sealing the deal. (Of<br>course, the button on their website says, &ldquo;Buy this book&rdquo; and they talk<br>about &ldquo;Ebook sales&rdquo; at conferences&mdash;no one says, &ldquo;License this book for<br>your Kindle&rdquo; or &ldquo;Total licenses of ebooks are up from 0.00001\% of all<br>publishing to 0.0001\% of all publishing, a 100-fold increase!&rdquo;)<br>I say to hell with them. You bought it, you own it. I believe in copyright<br>law&rsquo;s guarantee of ownership in your books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There    s a dangerous group of anti-copyright activists out there who posea clear and present danger to the future of authors and publishing .
Theyhave no respect for property or laws .
What    s more , they    re powerful andorganized , and have the ears of lawmakers and the press.I    m speaking , of course , of the legal departments at ebook publishers.These people don    t believe in copyright law .
Copyright law says thatwhen you buy a book , you own it .
You can give it away , you can lend it,you can pass it on to your descendants or donate it to the local homelessshelter .
Owning books has been around for longer than publishing bookshas .
Copyright law has alwaysrecognized your right to own your books.When copyright laws are made    by elected officials , acting for the publicgood    they always safeguard this right.But ebook publishers don    t respect copyright law , and they don    t believein your right to own property .
Instead , they say that when you    buy    an ebook , you    re really only licensing that book , and that copyrightlaw is superseded by the thousands of farcical , abusive words in the licenseagreement you click through on the way to sealing the deal .
( Ofcourse , the button on their website says ,    Buy this book    and they talkabout    Ebook sales    at conferences    no one says ,    License this book foryour Kindle    or    Total licenses of ebooks are up from 0.00001 \ % of allpublishing to 0.0001 \ % of all publishing , a 100-fold increase !    ) I say to hell with them .
You bought it , you own it .
I believe in copyrightlaw    s guarantee of ownership in your books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There’s a dangerous group of anti-copyright activists out there who posea clear and present danger to the future of authors and publishing.
Theyhave no respect for property or laws.
What’s more, they’re powerful andorganized, and have the ears of lawmakers and the press.I’m speaking, of course, of the legal departments at ebook publishers.These people don’t believe in copyright law.
Copyright law says thatwhen you buy a book, you own it.
You can give it away, you can lend it,you can pass it on to your descendants or donate it to the local homelessshelter.
Owning books has been around for longer than publishing bookshas.
Copyright law has alwaysrecognized your right to own your books.When copyright laws are made—by elected officials, acting for the publicgood—they always safeguard this right.But ebook publishers don’t respect copyright law, and they don’t believein your right to own property.
Instead, they say that when you“buy” an ebook, you’re really only licensing that book, and that copyrightlaw is superseded by the thousands of farcical, abusive words in the licenseagreement you click through on the way to sealing the deal.
(Ofcourse, the button on their website says, “Buy this book” and they talkabout “Ebook sales” at conferences—no one says, “License this book foryour Kindle” or “Total licenses of ebooks are up from 0.00001\% of allpublishing to 0.0001\% of all publishing, a 100-fold increase!”)I say to hell with them.
You bought it, you own it.
I believe in copyrightlaw’s guarantee of ownership in your books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623410</id>
	<title>*bzzt* He's even more wrong</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262455020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc. requires attribution</p></div><p>Not only that, Eric Raymond argues in The Cathedral and the Bazaar that one motivation for writing open source code is to earn the esteem of your fellow coders.  For that, proper attribution is <em>crucial</em>.  Not only don't we disrespect artistic ownership, we want our peers to respect ours.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and even pirates don't bother removing credits.</p></div><p>In fact, pirates add their own credits to stuff.  Have you ever seen an anime video with "Fansubbed by SuchAndSuch" or "Ripped by SoAndSo" banners?  Or downloaded the newest film released by aXXo?</p><p>Everybody wants fame and esteem.</p><p>(Not everybody wants it as much as $other\_thing, or are willing to do the things it takes to earn it, but we all like to hear "you are important to me" and "I love the things you do for me")</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.</p></div><p>I disagree---it doesn't go nowhere, it goes <em>the other way</em>.</p><p>On top of that, the open source culture around software may <em>decrease</em> piracy.</p><p>Back before I discovered gaim (now called pidgin), my favourite multi-protocol IM chat client was Trillian.  Before I discovered the GIMP, I used Paint Shop Pro.  And so forth.  I won't link to scan-ins of my receipts; you might steal my serialz or something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>By allowing people to share freely, and by the fact that Free (as in talking beer) software exists that solves most of most peoples' software needs, there's less need to pirate non-FOSS software.</p><p>I don't think he's right.  At least I have made a good argument for why he might be wrong.  But really this is a question of fact, so to settle the matter we really ought to collect some evidence.  What would be good evidence?</p><p>How about this experiment: pull people into your psych lab, teach them about open source and free software ideas and ideals, then let them back out into their lives.  Some months later (1? 3? 6? 12? More than once?), pull them back and ask them how they feel about copyright infringement and how much copyright infringement they did.</p><p>As controls, pull in some other people and talk to them about something unrelated.  Pull them back in on the same schedule as the others.  Compare the answers of the two groups.</p><p>Maybe you want to divide the copyright infringement questions into different types (software, music, films, books, other).  And maybe you want a baseline measurement from when you first pull them in; maybe even both before and after talking about FLOSS.</p><p>Wouldn't that settle the matter?  Because, as far as I can tell, all we have now is biased opinions---including my own, I'm just thinking more clearly about his bias because he disagrees with me.  Don't you just love human nature?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc .
requires attributionNot only that , Eric Raymond argues in The Cathedral and the Bazaar that one motivation for writing open source code is to earn the esteem of your fellow coders .
For that , proper attribution is crucial .
Not only do n't we disrespect artistic ownership , we want our peers to respect ours.and even pirates do n't bother removing credits.In fact , pirates add their own credits to stuff .
Have you ever seen an anime video with " Fansubbed by SuchAndSuch " or " Ripped by SoAndSo " banners ?
Or downloaded the newest film released by aXXo ? Everybody wants fame and esteem .
( Not everybody wants it as much as $ other \ _thing , or are willing to do the things it takes to earn it , but we all like to hear " you are important to me " and " I love the things you do for me " ) Your 'artistic ownership ' goes nowhere.I disagree---it does n't go nowhere , it goes the other way.On top of that , the open source culture around software may decrease piracy.Back before I discovered gaim ( now called pidgin ) , my favourite multi-protocol IM chat client was Trillian .
Before I discovered the GIMP , I used Paint Shop Pro .
And so forth .
I wo n't link to scan-ins of my receipts ; you might steal my serialz or something ; ) By allowing people to share freely , and by the fact that Free ( as in talking beer ) software exists that solves most of most peoples ' software needs , there 's less need to pirate non-FOSS software.I do n't think he 's right .
At least I have made a good argument for why he might be wrong .
But really this is a question of fact , so to settle the matter we really ought to collect some evidence .
What would be good evidence ? How about this experiment : pull people into your psych lab , teach them about open source and free software ideas and ideals , then let them back out into their lives .
Some months later ( 1 ?
3 ? 6 ?
12 ? More than once ?
) , pull them back and ask them how they feel about copyright infringement and how much copyright infringement they did.As controls , pull in some other people and talk to them about something unrelated .
Pull them back in on the same schedule as the others .
Compare the answers of the two groups.Maybe you want to divide the copyright infringement questions into different types ( software , music , films , books , other ) .
And maybe you want a baseline measurement from when you first pull them in ; maybe even both before and after talking about FLOSS.Would n't that settle the matter ?
Because , as far as I can tell , all we have now is biased opinions---including my own , I 'm just thinking more clearly about his bias because he disagrees with me .
Do n't you just love human nature ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc.
requires attributionNot only that, Eric Raymond argues in The Cathedral and the Bazaar that one motivation for writing open source code is to earn the esteem of your fellow coders.
For that, proper attribution is crucial.
Not only don't we disrespect artistic ownership, we want our peers to respect ours.and even pirates don't bother removing credits.In fact, pirates add their own credits to stuff.
Have you ever seen an anime video with "Fansubbed by SuchAndSuch" or "Ripped by SoAndSo" banners?
Or downloaded the newest film released by aXXo?Everybody wants fame and esteem.
(Not everybody wants it as much as $other\_thing, or are willing to do the things it takes to earn it, but we all like to hear "you are important to me" and "I love the things you do for me")Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.I disagree---it doesn't go nowhere, it goes the other way.On top of that, the open source culture around software may decrease piracy.Back before I discovered gaim (now called pidgin), my favourite multi-protocol IM chat client was Trillian.
Before I discovered the GIMP, I used Paint Shop Pro.
And so forth.
I won't link to scan-ins of my receipts; you might steal my serialz or something ;)By allowing people to share freely, and by the fact that Free (as in talking beer) software exists that solves most of most peoples' software needs, there's less need to pirate non-FOSS software.I don't think he's right.
At least I have made a good argument for why he might be wrong.
But really this is a question of fact, so to settle the matter we really ought to collect some evidence.
What would be good evidence?How about this experiment: pull people into your psych lab, teach them about open source and free software ideas and ideals, then let them back out into their lives.
Some months later (1?
3? 6?
12? More than once?
), pull them back and ask them how they feel about copyright infringement and how much copyright infringement they did.As controls, pull in some other people and talk to them about something unrelated.
Pull them back in on the same schedule as the others.
Compare the answers of the two groups.Maybe you want to divide the copyright infringement questions into different types (software, music, films, books, other).
And maybe you want a baseline measurement from when you first pull them in; maybe even both before and after talking about FLOSS.Wouldn't that settle the matter?
Because, as far as I can tell, all we have now is biased opinions---including my own, I'm just thinking more clearly about his bias because he disagrees with me.
Don't you just love human nature?
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622258</id>
	<title>Kindle owners probably do not buy more books</title>
	<author>sackvillian</author>
	<datestamp>1262447760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>than non-kindle owners as TFA implied.<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes. Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.</p></div><p>Consider how many sources exist for buying bound books, Amazon not being a particularly great one, and how many sources there are for eBooks for Kindle, especially for the technically un-inclined.  That's a whopping selection bias!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>than non-kindle owners as TFA implied .
...consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes .
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.Consider how many sources exist for buying bound books , Amazon not being a particularly great one , and how many sources there are for eBooks for Kindle , especially for the technically un-inclined .
That 's a whopping selection bias !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>than non-kindle owners as TFA implied.
...consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes.
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.Consider how many sources exist for buying bound books, Amazon not being a particularly great one, and how many sources there are for eBooks for Kindle, especially for the technically un-inclined.
That's a whopping selection bias!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625362</id>
	<title>Re:The "hobbyist art is good enough" argument</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1262465820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Musicians want to play. Actors want to act. Writers want to write.</p></div><p>Engineers want to engineer.  Doctors want to heal.  Scientists want to research.
<br> <br>
Except the system is set up to pay these people for what they do.  If we didn't provide incentives for these people, they might still want to do these things, but would they bother to achieve a high level of competence if they are just doing it in their spare time?  Sure, some of them will.  But do would want to drive across a bridge built by an engineer who designs them as a hobby on weekends, get surgery performed by a doctor who read a few anatomy books after work, or take a drug developed by an amateur scientist in his basement?  It's possible that innovation can (and has) come from lots of amateurs in these fields, but I bet that most of the time you wouldn't want to do any of these things unless they had been tested and screened by qualified professionals who are usually trained and paid well for their work.
<br> <br>
I think amateur artists/musicians/writers are fantastic, and new distribution networks like we have on the internet have helped create some great things.  I would encourage everyone to create, no matter what your skill level.  And you're right -- moderation and rating systems can help to point audience members to things that might interest them.
<br> <br>
But what's the incentive for amateurs to cultivate their talents and to develop their skills rather than worrying about what they're going to eat tonight?  Sure, some "starving artists" may do it anyway.  Some may have such innate talent that they are a success right from the start.  But that's not all people.
<br> <br>
Basically, you're making an argument for artistic mediocrity.  It's sort of like those who don't see a problem that teachers earn so little, yet in the US they are often required to have a master's degree, and if they teach something like science or math, they could generally earn twice as much in the "real world."  Oh, but those who are "dedicated to teaching" or really, truly "want to teach" will do it anyway.  And it's true, I've met quite a few very bright people who teach regardless of the fact that they could be earning 2-3 times as much with their talent and education.
<br> <br>
But I've also been certified as a teacher myself, and I saw about 75\% of the people going into the profession are some of the dumbest people I've ever met with degrees in science and math.  If you don't provide incentives to people, you'll get some talent, but mostly people who are smart will go elsewhere.  We can see the results in the American educational system.  Do we want to encourage that trend in artistic production as well?
<br> <br>
Again, I think you're right that some amateurs are really good.  But without incentives, I think the quality and number of people who devote themselves to artistic production will decrease.
<br> <br>
You really do get better if you practice everyday and have professional training, just like engineers, doctors, and scientists.  I don't have an easy answer to the copyright problem, but I don't think the answer is simply to say, "Oh well, there are some good amateurs out there, and people will do that anyway."  I wouldn't trust the quality of a bridge designed by such a group of people, and so the quality of music, writing, etc. coming from them will probably be similarly suspect a lot of the time.
<br> <br>
QA only works well when you have some quality to begin with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Musicians want to play .
Actors want to act .
Writers want to write.Engineers want to engineer .
Doctors want to heal .
Scientists want to research .
Except the system is set up to pay these people for what they do .
If we did n't provide incentives for these people , they might still want to do these things , but would they bother to achieve a high level of competence if they are just doing it in their spare time ?
Sure , some of them will .
But do would want to drive across a bridge built by an engineer who designs them as a hobby on weekends , get surgery performed by a doctor who read a few anatomy books after work , or take a drug developed by an amateur scientist in his basement ?
It 's possible that innovation can ( and has ) come from lots of amateurs in these fields , but I bet that most of the time you would n't want to do any of these things unless they had been tested and screened by qualified professionals who are usually trained and paid well for their work .
I think amateur artists/musicians/writers are fantastic , and new distribution networks like we have on the internet have helped create some great things .
I would encourage everyone to create , no matter what your skill level .
And you 're right -- moderation and rating systems can help to point audience members to things that might interest them .
But what 's the incentive for amateurs to cultivate their talents and to develop their skills rather than worrying about what they 're going to eat tonight ?
Sure , some " starving artists " may do it anyway .
Some may have such innate talent that they are a success right from the start .
But that 's not all people .
Basically , you 're making an argument for artistic mediocrity .
It 's sort of like those who do n't see a problem that teachers earn so little , yet in the US they are often required to have a master 's degree , and if they teach something like science or math , they could generally earn twice as much in the " real world .
" Oh , but those who are " dedicated to teaching " or really , truly " want to teach " will do it anyway .
And it 's true , I 've met quite a few very bright people who teach regardless of the fact that they could be earning 2-3 times as much with their talent and education .
But I 've also been certified as a teacher myself , and I saw about 75 \ % of the people going into the profession are some of the dumbest people I 've ever met with degrees in science and math .
If you do n't provide incentives to people , you 'll get some talent , but mostly people who are smart will go elsewhere .
We can see the results in the American educational system .
Do we want to encourage that trend in artistic production as well ?
Again , I think you 're right that some amateurs are really good .
But without incentives , I think the quality and number of people who devote themselves to artistic production will decrease .
You really do get better if you practice everyday and have professional training , just like engineers , doctors , and scientists .
I do n't have an easy answer to the copyright problem , but I do n't think the answer is simply to say , " Oh well , there are some good amateurs out there , and people will do that anyway .
" I would n't trust the quality of a bridge designed by such a group of people , and so the quality of music , writing , etc .
coming from them will probably be similarly suspect a lot of the time .
QA only works well when you have some quality to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Musicians want to play.
Actors want to act.
Writers want to write.Engineers want to engineer.
Doctors want to heal.
Scientists want to research.
Except the system is set up to pay these people for what they do.
If we didn't provide incentives for these people, they might still want to do these things, but would they bother to achieve a high level of competence if they are just doing it in their spare time?
Sure, some of them will.
But do would want to drive across a bridge built by an engineer who designs them as a hobby on weekends, get surgery performed by a doctor who read a few anatomy books after work, or take a drug developed by an amateur scientist in his basement?
It's possible that innovation can (and has) come from lots of amateurs in these fields, but I bet that most of the time you wouldn't want to do any of these things unless they had been tested and screened by qualified professionals who are usually trained and paid well for their work.
I think amateur artists/musicians/writers are fantastic, and new distribution networks like we have on the internet have helped create some great things.
I would encourage everyone to create, no matter what your skill level.
And you're right -- moderation and rating systems can help to point audience members to things that might interest them.
But what's the incentive for amateurs to cultivate their talents and to develop their skills rather than worrying about what they're going to eat tonight?
Sure, some "starving artists" may do it anyway.
Some may have such innate talent that they are a success right from the start.
But that's not all people.
Basically, you're making an argument for artistic mediocrity.
It's sort of like those who don't see a problem that teachers earn so little, yet in the US they are often required to have a master's degree, and if they teach something like science or math, they could generally earn twice as much in the "real world.
"  Oh, but those who are "dedicated to teaching" or really, truly "want to teach" will do it anyway.
And it's true, I've met quite a few very bright people who teach regardless of the fact that they could be earning 2-3 times as much with their talent and education.
But I've also been certified as a teacher myself, and I saw about 75\% of the people going into the profession are some of the dumbest people I've ever met with degrees in science and math.
If you don't provide incentives to people, you'll get some talent, but mostly people who are smart will go elsewhere.
We can see the results in the American educational system.
Do we want to encourage that trend in artistic production as well?
Again, I think you're right that some amateurs are really good.
But without incentives, I think the quality and number of people who devote themselves to artistic production will decrease.
You really do get better if you practice everyday and have professional training, just like engineers, doctors, and scientists.
I don't have an easy answer to the copyright problem, but I don't think the answer is simply to say, "Oh well, there are some good amateurs out there, and people will do that anyway.
"  I wouldn't trust the quality of a bridge designed by such a group of people, and so the quality of music, writing, etc.
coming from them will probably be similarly suspect a lot of the time.
QA only works well when you have some quality to begin with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622656</id>
	<title>He should give the novel away, charge for support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enough Said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enough Said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enough Said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622232</id>
	<title>Let me paraphrase that</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1262447640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'With the more egalitarian culture in the North, the idea of ownership &mdash; of negro ownership &mdash; goes away. It terrifies me.'"</p></div></blockquote><p>The loss of something isn't inherently bad. That a change terrifies someone you might respect does not make it bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'With the more egalitarian culture in the North , the idea of ownership    of negro ownership    goes away .
It terrifies me .
' " The loss of something is n't inherently bad .
That a change terrifies someone you might respect does not make it bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'With the more egalitarian culture in the North, the idea of ownership — of negro ownership — goes away.
It terrifies me.
'"The loss of something isn't inherently bad.
That a change terrifies someone you might respect does not make it bad.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625462</id>
	<title>Re:The "hobbyist art is good enough" argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262423040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>making films is more resource intensive on a per movie basis, but not on a per viewing basis, else theater tickets would not be 3-10x the cost of movie tickets.  Also scheduling flexibility would be reduced - I can't see plays ever being performed weekdays at noon on a regular basis for the limited audiences that can basically have their personal theaters in the suburbs at this hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>making films is more resource intensive on a per movie basis , but not on a per viewing basis , else theater tickets would not be 3-10x the cost of movie tickets .
Also scheduling flexibility would be reduced - I ca n't see plays ever being performed weekdays at noon on a regular basis for the limited audiences that can basically have their personal theaters in the suburbs at this hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>making films is more resource intensive on a per movie basis, but not on a per viewing basis, else theater tickets would not be 3-10x the cost of movie tickets.
Also scheduling flexibility would be reduced - I can't see plays ever being performed weekdays at noon on a regular basis for the limited audiences that can basically have their personal theaters in the suburbs at this hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30628802</id>
	<title>Open Source Culture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was a kid, there were a lot of people I knew who believed they should be allowed to copy anything they wanted for free.  My parents would attempt to copy videotapes they rented, by hooking one VCR up to another.  I also remember them copying children's records from the library on to 8 track tape.</p><p>The D&amp;D nerds at school had a photocopy club going, where they would sell photocopies of modules to the other kids.  (This is how I got my first copy of Tomb of Horrors, only later did I decide it was immoral and replace it with a legit copy.)</p><p>I only knew one other kid with a computer.  My library of computer games consisted of birthday, christmas, and carefully saved up for games.  His consisted of "copied floppies."</p><p>Later, I got involved in watching fansubs.  This was before you could download video fansubs off of the Internet.  You'd send a fee to cover the video tapes and shipping, and the fansub club would send you video tapes with the fansubbed shows.  (To be fair, I only did this once, and tended to stick to actual US releases from legitimate companies.  Sigh... which means I have tons of old video tapes that would require me to hook up a VCR to watch.)</p><p>Oh, when I went to college the second time, for Computer Science, I rented a room in a house with some Thai people.  They never had anything original, from Microsoft Windows to the latest DVDs everything was sent to them from relatives in Thailand from the pirate markets there.</p><p>What did I learn from these experiences:</p><p>1.  Casual Piracy is a way of life.  As long as it is easy enough for an ordinary person to do with no complex knowledge it has been done for as long as it has been possible.</p><p>2.  However, primitive DRM like Macrovision thwarted my parents (ET came out all fuzzy when they tried to copy the tape), I'm sure that Infocom feelies thwarted would be casual pirates of their games, and so on.</p><p>3.  There's no philosophy about it.  My parents were religious types who impressed on me from an early age that sex outside marriage was wrong (this had no effect on me in the long term, and as a teenager it was sadly easy to remain celibate).  When I, a child, tried to explain that copying tapes was wrong, they got irritated with me... they just didn't care.  It was the same with every other casual pirate I knew.</p><p>Sherman Alexi is a fool.  People don't need some kind of moral philosophy to allow them to pirate, they just don't care.  They care possibly about being caught and punished.  DRM can make it easier to by the thing rather than pirating it.</p><p>Open Source, of course, is not the same as a Free Software philosophy.  There's no such thing as "open source" with fiction, the concept of "open source fiction" is nonsensical.  As to the Free Software philosophy, that's a complex idea.  It's certainly true that people like Stallman think that we'd be better off without copyright.  However, I'm pretty sure that most people don't liken utilities like operating systems and driver software to novels.  It's perfectly possible to have a Free Software philosophy and to be opposed to piracy of fiction.</p><p>It's now easy to pirate books.  Only the first obsessive who goes to the trouble of scanning it in (or hand typing it in) has any hard work to do.  Once that's done, piracy as is simple as finding your favorite torrent source an searching for the book.</p><p>And this is why books are pirated, because it's easy and many people don't care about artists rights.  It's along the lines of jaywalking or dropping gum-wrappers in the street.  In other words, it's a crime many people commit without caring about it in the slightest. (No, I'm not justifying littering or jay-walking here, just making a point.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a kid , there were a lot of people I knew who believed they should be allowed to copy anything they wanted for free .
My parents would attempt to copy videotapes they rented , by hooking one VCR up to another .
I also remember them copying children 's records from the library on to 8 track tape.The D&amp;D nerds at school had a photocopy club going , where they would sell photocopies of modules to the other kids .
( This is how I got my first copy of Tomb of Horrors , only later did I decide it was immoral and replace it with a legit copy .
) I only knew one other kid with a computer .
My library of computer games consisted of birthday , christmas , and carefully saved up for games .
His consisted of " copied floppies .
" Later , I got involved in watching fansubs .
This was before you could download video fansubs off of the Internet .
You 'd send a fee to cover the video tapes and shipping , and the fansub club would send you video tapes with the fansubbed shows .
( To be fair , I only did this once , and tended to stick to actual US releases from legitimate companies .
Sigh... which means I have tons of old video tapes that would require me to hook up a VCR to watch .
) Oh , when I went to college the second time , for Computer Science , I rented a room in a house with some Thai people .
They never had anything original , from Microsoft Windows to the latest DVDs everything was sent to them from relatives in Thailand from the pirate markets there.What did I learn from these experiences : 1 .
Casual Piracy is a way of life .
As long as it is easy enough for an ordinary person to do with no complex knowledge it has been done for as long as it has been possible.2 .
However , primitive DRM like Macrovision thwarted my parents ( ET came out all fuzzy when they tried to copy the tape ) , I 'm sure that Infocom feelies thwarted would be casual pirates of their games , and so on.3 .
There 's no philosophy about it .
My parents were religious types who impressed on me from an early age that sex outside marriage was wrong ( this had no effect on me in the long term , and as a teenager it was sadly easy to remain celibate ) .
When I , a child , tried to explain that copying tapes was wrong , they got irritated with me... they just did n't care .
It was the same with every other casual pirate I knew.Sherman Alexi is a fool .
People do n't need some kind of moral philosophy to allow them to pirate , they just do n't care .
They care possibly about being caught and punished .
DRM can make it easier to by the thing rather than pirating it.Open Source , of course , is not the same as a Free Software philosophy .
There 's no such thing as " open source " with fiction , the concept of " open source fiction " is nonsensical .
As to the Free Software philosophy , that 's a complex idea .
It 's certainly true that people like Stallman think that we 'd be better off without copyright .
However , I 'm pretty sure that most people do n't liken utilities like operating systems and driver software to novels .
It 's perfectly possible to have a Free Software philosophy and to be opposed to piracy of fiction.It 's now easy to pirate books .
Only the first obsessive who goes to the trouble of scanning it in ( or hand typing it in ) has any hard work to do .
Once that 's done , piracy as is simple as finding your favorite torrent source an searching for the book.And this is why books are pirated , because it 's easy and many people do n't care about artists rights .
It 's along the lines of jaywalking or dropping gum-wrappers in the street .
In other words , it 's a crime many people commit without caring about it in the slightest .
( No , I 'm not justifying littering or jay-walking here , just making a point .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a kid, there were a lot of people I knew who believed they should be allowed to copy anything they wanted for free.
My parents would attempt to copy videotapes they rented, by hooking one VCR up to another.
I also remember them copying children's records from the library on to 8 track tape.The D&amp;D nerds at school had a photocopy club going, where they would sell photocopies of modules to the other kids.
(This is how I got my first copy of Tomb of Horrors, only later did I decide it was immoral and replace it with a legit copy.
)I only knew one other kid with a computer.
My library of computer games consisted of birthday, christmas, and carefully saved up for games.
His consisted of "copied floppies.
"Later, I got involved in watching fansubs.
This was before you could download video fansubs off of the Internet.
You'd send a fee to cover the video tapes and shipping, and the fansub club would send you video tapes with the fansubbed shows.
(To be fair, I only did this once, and tended to stick to actual US releases from legitimate companies.
Sigh... which means I have tons of old video tapes that would require me to hook up a VCR to watch.
)Oh, when I went to college the second time, for Computer Science, I rented a room in a house with some Thai people.
They never had anything original, from Microsoft Windows to the latest DVDs everything was sent to them from relatives in Thailand from the pirate markets there.What did I learn from these experiences:1.
Casual Piracy is a way of life.
As long as it is easy enough for an ordinary person to do with no complex knowledge it has been done for as long as it has been possible.2.
However, primitive DRM like Macrovision thwarted my parents (ET came out all fuzzy when they tried to copy the tape), I'm sure that Infocom feelies thwarted would be casual pirates of their games, and so on.3.
There's no philosophy about it.
My parents were religious types who impressed on me from an early age that sex outside marriage was wrong (this had no effect on me in the long term, and as a teenager it was sadly easy to remain celibate).
When I, a child, tried to explain that copying tapes was wrong, they got irritated with me... they just didn't care.
It was the same with every other casual pirate I knew.Sherman Alexi is a fool.
People don't need some kind of moral philosophy to allow them to pirate, they just don't care.
They care possibly about being caught and punished.
DRM can make it easier to by the thing rather than pirating it.Open Source, of course, is not the same as a Free Software philosophy.
There's no such thing as "open source" with fiction, the concept of "open source fiction" is nonsensical.
As to the Free Software philosophy, that's a complex idea.
It's certainly true that people like Stallman think that we'd be better off without copyright.
However, I'm pretty sure that most people don't liken utilities like operating systems and driver software to novels.
It's perfectly possible to have a Free Software philosophy and to be opposed to piracy of fiction.It's now easy to pirate books.
Only the first obsessive who goes to the trouble of scanning it in (or hand typing it in) has any hard work to do.
Once that's done, piracy as is simple as finding your favorite torrent source an searching for the book.And this is why books are pirated, because it's easy and many people don't care about artists rights.
It's along the lines of jaywalking or dropping gum-wrappers in the street.
In other words, it's a crime many people commit without caring about it in the slightest.
(No, I'm not justifying littering or jay-walking here, just making a point.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622186</id>
	<title>CNN publishes such a story? NOT surprizing to us!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262447220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When has CNN ever been considered to be an objective news provider?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When has CNN ever been considered to be an objective news provider ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When has CNN ever been considered to be an objective news provider?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624954</id>
	<title>Re:Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262463480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you'd have to be crazy to devalue the importance of the FSF and the like on our modern day world. Does anyone else besides myself try and imagine a world without the GNU toolkit and/or Linux and just can't see it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'd have to be crazy to devalue the importance of the FSF and the like on our modern day world .
Does anyone else besides myself try and imagine a world without the GNU toolkit and/or Linux and just ca n't see it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'd have to be crazy to devalue the importance of the FSF and the like on our modern day world.
Does anyone else besides myself try and imagine a world without the GNU toolkit and/or Linux and just can't see it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625668</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262424240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually! Yeah some people do pirate e-books that they would have bought otherwise. I generally buy books. In fact I like buying actual books, but if I'm sitting there with nothing to read then I'm going to go and get some book I'm interested in for free.</p><p>This is just me, being honest. I don't doubt there are people who pirate books exclusively that might have bought them. There's a problem when people who argue for one side just pretend the other doesn't exist. The example from the article might be one, but so is your argument. The reality is: supply changes. The product is easier to acquire, that's good. It's also much easier to "steal" (acquire illegally or otherwise not paying the market equilibrium), that's bad. The question should be whether the good outweighs the bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually !
Yeah some people do pirate e-books that they would have bought otherwise .
I generally buy books .
In fact I like buying actual books , but if I 'm sitting there with nothing to read then I 'm going to go and get some book I 'm interested in for free.This is just me , being honest .
I do n't doubt there are people who pirate books exclusively that might have bought them .
There 's a problem when people who argue for one side just pretend the other does n't exist .
The example from the article might be one , but so is your argument .
The reality is : supply changes .
The product is easier to acquire , that 's good .
It 's also much easier to " steal " ( acquire illegally or otherwise not paying the market equilibrium ) , that 's bad .
The question should be whether the good outweighs the bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually!
Yeah some people do pirate e-books that they would have bought otherwise.
I generally buy books.
In fact I like buying actual books, but if I'm sitting there with nothing to read then I'm going to go and get some book I'm interested in for free.This is just me, being honest.
I don't doubt there are people who pirate books exclusively that might have bought them.
There's a problem when people who argue for one side just pretend the other doesn't exist.
The example from the article might be one, but so is your argument.
The reality is: supply changes.
The product is easier to acquire, that's good.
It's also much easier to "steal" (acquire illegally or otherwise not paying the market equilibrium), that's bad.
The question should be whether the good outweighs the bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622890</id>
	<title>How?</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1262452080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alexie is a Native American. Those people have no sense of ownership anyway. Their tribes roam from book to book. It wasn't until the white man arrived with his culture of printing out books and putting his name on them and getting all upset if the Indians took them off the shelf and didn't return them within two weeks that the trouble started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alexie is a Native American .
Those people have no sense of ownership anyway .
Their tribes roam from book to book .
It was n't until the white man arrived with his culture of printing out books and putting his name on them and getting all upset if the Indians took them off the shelf and did n't return them within two weeks that the trouble started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alexie is a Native American.
Those people have no sense of ownership anyway.
Their tribes roam from book to book.
It wasn't until the white man arrived with his culture of printing out books and putting his name on them and getting all upset if the Indians took them off the shelf and didn't return them within two weeks that the trouble started.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, your comment is exactly what I expect from someone who's never made their living as a writer, artist, or musician.</p><p>Ever been in a room filled with end users, with you representing IT, and being told how the systems should work by a bunch of people who can barely send an email?</p><p>That's how these discussions feel, except the posters are the end users.</p><p>There are very few if any full time artists/writers/musicians on this website, and they are not well represented here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , your comment is exactly what I expect from someone who 's never made their living as a writer , artist , or musician.Ever been in a room filled with end users , with you representing IT , and being told how the systems should work by a bunch of people who can barely send an email ? That 's how these discussions feel , except the posters are the end users.There are very few if any full time artists/writers/musicians on this website , and they are not well represented here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, your comment is exactly what I expect from someone who's never made their living as a writer, artist, or musician.Ever been in a room filled with end users, with you representing IT, and being told how the systems should work by a bunch of people who can barely send an email?That's how these discussions feel, except the posters are the end users.There are very few if any full time artists/writers/musicians on this website, and they are not well represented here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622342</id>
	<title>A bunk argument...</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1262448540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is really humorous to begin with is... is this even news?  FTFA, "...Digital piracy, long confined to music and movies, is spreading to books."  Uh, e-book piracy has been huge for the last 6-8 years if not more (newsgroup book flood posts, anyone?)  I've been reading/collecting e-books for some time when I'm in a hurry and don't want to sit in the uber-long lines at Barnes-and-Noble or equivalent, but guess what I do?  I either pay the little extra money to have my e-book print and bound professionally if I use it a lot or I just find the real book online for the cheapest price.  The point I am making is there is a nostalgia  associated with having a tangible book to flip through, bookmark, come back to reference, read again, read to your kids for the first time, etc.  That's why I have (and the rest of the good world) has shelves full of tangible books at home.
<br>
Since we're on the topic of e-readers, like the Amazon Kindle, let's look at their target audience and why people are using them in the first place:  Convenience, timeliness and information readiness.  If I can use my e-reader to subscribe to my favorite XYZ newspaper and have it 'digitally' delivered to my kitchen table next to my hot cup of coffee, why the hell would I walk my ass outside in the snow to go pick it up off my driveway because the lazy delivery boy didn't want to put it in my delivery box?  Same goes for wanting to buy that favorite/popular/just-released book and you don't want to stand in line at midnight to get it?   Doesn't mean you won't go buy the hard-copy later on if that literary piece happens to be something you enjoyed enough to have as a tangible keepsake on your bookshelf, does it?  And to end it, how many of those people are going to crack their Kindle with 'Swindle'?  A few, but not the majority, because <b>I</b> don't mind paying for convenience, timeliness and information readiness once in a while.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is really humorous to begin with is... is this even news ?
FTFA , " ...Digital piracy , long confined to music and movies , is spreading to books .
" Uh , e-book piracy has been huge for the last 6-8 years if not more ( newsgroup book flood posts , anyone ?
) I 've been reading/collecting e-books for some time when I 'm in a hurry and do n't want to sit in the uber-long lines at Barnes-and-Noble or equivalent , but guess what I do ?
I either pay the little extra money to have my e-book print and bound professionally if I use it a lot or I just find the real book online for the cheapest price .
The point I am making is there is a nostalgia associated with having a tangible book to flip through , bookmark , come back to reference , read again , read to your kids for the first time , etc .
That 's why I have ( and the rest of the good world ) has shelves full of tangible books at home .
Since we 're on the topic of e-readers , like the Amazon Kindle , let 's look at their target audience and why people are using them in the first place : Convenience , timeliness and information readiness .
If I can use my e-reader to subscribe to my favorite XYZ newspaper and have it 'digitally ' delivered to my kitchen table next to my hot cup of coffee , why the hell would I walk my ass outside in the snow to go pick it up off my driveway because the lazy delivery boy did n't want to put it in my delivery box ?
Same goes for wanting to buy that favorite/popular/just-released book and you do n't want to stand in line at midnight to get it ?
Does n't mean you wo n't go buy the hard-copy later on if that literary piece happens to be something you enjoyed enough to have as a tangible keepsake on your bookshelf , does it ?
And to end it , how many of those people are going to crack their Kindle with 'Swindle ' ?
A few , but not the majority , because I do n't mind paying for convenience , timeliness and information readiness once in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is really humorous to begin with is... is this even news?
FTFA, "...Digital piracy, long confined to music and movies, is spreading to books.
"  Uh, e-book piracy has been huge for the last 6-8 years if not more (newsgroup book flood posts, anyone?
)  I've been reading/collecting e-books for some time when I'm in a hurry and don't want to sit in the uber-long lines at Barnes-and-Noble or equivalent, but guess what I do?
I either pay the little extra money to have my e-book print and bound professionally if I use it a lot or I just find the real book online for the cheapest price.
The point I am making is there is a nostalgia  associated with having a tangible book to flip through, bookmark, come back to reference, read again, read to your kids for the first time, etc.
That's why I have (and the rest of the good world) has shelves full of tangible books at home.
Since we're on the topic of e-readers, like the Amazon Kindle, let's look at their target audience and why people are using them in the first place:  Convenience, timeliness and information readiness.
If I can use my e-reader to subscribe to my favorite XYZ newspaper and have it 'digitally' delivered to my kitchen table next to my hot cup of coffee, why the hell would I walk my ass outside in the snow to go pick it up off my driveway because the lazy delivery boy didn't want to put it in my delivery box?
Same goes for wanting to buy that favorite/popular/just-released book and you don't want to stand in line at midnight to get it?
Doesn't mean you won't go buy the hard-copy later on if that literary piece happens to be something you enjoyed enough to have as a tangible keepsake on your bookshelf, does it?
And to end it, how many of those people are going to crack their Kindle with 'Swindle'?
A few, but not the majority, because I don't mind paying for convenience, timeliness and information readiness once in a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627520</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Demena</author>
	<datestamp>1262436180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you for your information.  I will be following your footsteps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for your information .
I will be following your footsteps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for your information.
I will be following your footsteps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30626326</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262428380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, he stopped the project, because he did not want readers, who read because of the cool business model, but because they like his stories. and everyone was just reading the story, because it was cool buying it chapter for chapter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , he stopped the project , because he did not want readers , who read because of the cool business model , but because they like his stories .
and everyone was just reading the story , because it was cool buying it chapter for chapter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, he stopped the project, because he did not want readers, who read because of the cool business model, but because they like his stories.
and everyone was just reading the story, because it was cool buying it chapter for chapter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623090</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Old97</author>
	<datestamp>1262453160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your logic escapes me.  I understand technology very well and I understand his concern.  Piracy is much easier and cheaper in a digital world than in a print world.  It is a threat to the business of content creators (authors) and their publishers.  Ads won't pay the bills.  All the clowns on this site who think people should or can work for free or a pittance need to get of their mommas' basements and try to support a family.
</p><p>
I'm talking about people who write books, write or make music, movies, etc. If you have a family or want a life or good health you can't spend your time on the road touring nor can you afford to spend all your free time producing content for which you earn little income.  Living for art is a something only the wealthy and the obsessive can do.  The rest of us want a nice home, medical care, educated and happy kids and a content spouse. If you don't want or need that then fine, but you are part of a tiny minority.
</p><p>
So how does one get paid a decent amount for one's work in this new model?  Advertising is not going to do it.  Markets are more fragmented because there are more content delivery channels available.  Well that drives down ad rates for the mass market vendors.  So the solution is supposed to be to improve the targeting of ads to consumers based on what we know about their interests and proclivities.  The problem their is that requires a lot of data collection that many of us see as an invasion of privacy.  We block the ads, block the cookies and turn off the scripts in order to avoid all that.  Now how much would an advertiser pay if his message rarely gets through and only the clueless can be targeted? (Even the clueless eventually start blocking ads and third party cookies and such.)
</p><p>
Charging for content is necessary and in a digital world the only way that works if enough people are willing to pay.  Of those who are willing to pay, you need to get them to pay and not just take it for free.  Reasonable unit pricing and convenient delivery helps (a'la iTunes), but frankly, piracy is pretty easy and convenient too.  So why pay?  Some of us pay because we feel a responsibility to the content producers, but many people seem to assume that content producers are all millionaires.  Why is that?  Who do they think are paying them?  The only rich content producers are the lucky few. Even in a pre-digital world many of the most talented and creative people barely eked out a living and many dropped out in order to provide for their loved ones.  In a digital world it can be much tougher.
</p><p>
So whether or not this particular author understands technology, he does understand that his world and his livelihood is under threat and that he needs to figure out how to adjust.  That's just being perceptive.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your logic escapes me .
I understand technology very well and I understand his concern .
Piracy is much easier and cheaper in a digital world than in a print world .
It is a threat to the business of content creators ( authors ) and their publishers .
Ads wo n't pay the bills .
All the clowns on this site who think people should or can work for free or a pittance need to get of their mommas ' basements and try to support a family .
I 'm talking about people who write books , write or make music , movies , etc .
If you have a family or want a life or good health you ca n't spend your time on the road touring nor can you afford to spend all your free time producing content for which you earn little income .
Living for art is a something only the wealthy and the obsessive can do .
The rest of us want a nice home , medical care , educated and happy kids and a content spouse .
If you do n't want or need that then fine , but you are part of a tiny minority .
So how does one get paid a decent amount for one 's work in this new model ?
Advertising is not going to do it .
Markets are more fragmented because there are more content delivery channels available .
Well that drives down ad rates for the mass market vendors .
So the solution is supposed to be to improve the targeting of ads to consumers based on what we know about their interests and proclivities .
The problem their is that requires a lot of data collection that many of us see as an invasion of privacy .
We block the ads , block the cookies and turn off the scripts in order to avoid all that .
Now how much would an advertiser pay if his message rarely gets through and only the clueless can be targeted ?
( Even the clueless eventually start blocking ads and third party cookies and such .
) Charging for content is necessary and in a digital world the only way that works if enough people are willing to pay .
Of those who are willing to pay , you need to get them to pay and not just take it for free .
Reasonable unit pricing and convenient delivery helps ( a'la iTunes ) , but frankly , piracy is pretty easy and convenient too .
So why pay ?
Some of us pay because we feel a responsibility to the content producers , but many people seem to assume that content producers are all millionaires .
Why is that ?
Who do they think are paying them ?
The only rich content producers are the lucky few .
Even in a pre-digital world many of the most talented and creative people barely eked out a living and many dropped out in order to provide for their loved ones .
In a digital world it can be much tougher .
So whether or not this particular author understands technology , he does understand that his world and his livelihood is under threat and that he needs to figure out how to adjust .
That 's just being perceptive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your logic escapes me.
I understand technology very well and I understand his concern.
Piracy is much easier and cheaper in a digital world than in a print world.
It is a threat to the business of content creators (authors) and their publishers.
Ads won't pay the bills.
All the clowns on this site who think people should or can work for free or a pittance need to get of their mommas' basements and try to support a family.
I'm talking about people who write books, write or make music, movies, etc.
If you have a family or want a life or good health you can't spend your time on the road touring nor can you afford to spend all your free time producing content for which you earn little income.
Living for art is a something only the wealthy and the obsessive can do.
The rest of us want a nice home, medical care, educated and happy kids and a content spouse.
If you don't want or need that then fine, but you are part of a tiny minority.
So how does one get paid a decent amount for one's work in this new model?
Advertising is not going to do it.
Markets are more fragmented because there are more content delivery channels available.
Well that drives down ad rates for the mass market vendors.
So the solution is supposed to be to improve the targeting of ads to consumers based on what we know about their interests and proclivities.
The problem their is that requires a lot of data collection that many of us see as an invasion of privacy.
We block the ads, block the cookies and turn off the scripts in order to avoid all that.
Now how much would an advertiser pay if his message rarely gets through and only the clueless can be targeted?
(Even the clueless eventually start blocking ads and third party cookies and such.
)

Charging for content is necessary and in a digital world the only way that works if enough people are willing to pay.
Of those who are willing to pay, you need to get them to pay and not just take it for free.
Reasonable unit pricing and convenient delivery helps (a'la iTunes), but frankly, piracy is pretty easy and convenient too.
So why pay?
Some of us pay because we feel a responsibility to the content producers, but many people seem to assume that content producers are all millionaires.
Why is that?
Who do they think are paying them?
The only rich content producers are the lucky few.
Even in a pre-digital world many of the most talented and creative people barely eked out a living and many dropped out in order to provide for their loved ones.
In a digital world it can be much tougher.
So whether or not this particular author understands technology, he does understand that his world and his livelihood is under threat and that he needs to figure out how to adjust.
That's just being perceptive.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623504</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Tikkun</author>
	<datestamp>1262455380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it's ok to steal, as long as you steal more than you could possibly have bought legitimately otherwise?</p></div><p>The point is that the law itself is wrong. Neither the government nor google have a god given monopoly on the free exchange of culture (libraries). When I buy a book, I share it with anyone I can. No one gets paid when I do this so it must be destroying capitalism, right?<br> <br>

People are building book scanners, compressing the results and distributing them by the tens of thousands. No one had to tell them, pay them, ask accounting, check with marketing, find a market, organize a focus group, ask a lawyer, take some investors to lunch, play golf with the ceo of a supplier, etc. Nor did anyone have to deal with the bizantine process of asking the government for money. They're doing this because they love books and they want to make the world a better place.<br> <br>

If you think that telling some kid in India (or Indiana) that downloading a book from a friend is bad, fine. But at least have the decency to suggest that we ban the sale of used books, ban private libraries and install fingerprint scanners on kindles to prevent people from sharing them with friends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's ok to steal , as long as you steal more than you could possibly have bought legitimately otherwise ? The point is that the law itself is wrong .
Neither the government nor google have a god given monopoly on the free exchange of culture ( libraries ) .
When I buy a book , I share it with anyone I can .
No one gets paid when I do this so it must be destroying capitalism , right ?
People are building book scanners , compressing the results and distributing them by the tens of thousands .
No one had to tell them , pay them , ask accounting , check with marketing , find a market , organize a focus group , ask a lawyer , take some investors to lunch , play golf with the ceo of a supplier , etc .
Nor did anyone have to deal with the bizantine process of asking the government for money .
They 're doing this because they love books and they want to make the world a better place .
If you think that telling some kid in India ( or Indiana ) that downloading a book from a friend is bad , fine .
But at least have the decency to suggest that we ban the sale of used books , ban private libraries and install fingerprint scanners on kindles to prevent people from sharing them with friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's ok to steal, as long as you steal more than you could possibly have bought legitimately otherwise?The point is that the law itself is wrong.
Neither the government nor google have a god given monopoly on the free exchange of culture (libraries).
When I buy a book, I share it with anyone I can.
No one gets paid when I do this so it must be destroying capitalism, right?
People are building book scanners, compressing the results and distributing them by the tens of thousands.
No one had to tell them, pay them, ask accounting, check with marketing, find a market, organize a focus group, ask a lawyer, take some investors to lunch, play golf with the ceo of a supplier, etc.
Nor did anyone have to deal with the bizantine process of asking the government for money.
They're doing this because they love books and they want to make the world a better place.
If you think that telling some kid in India (or Indiana) that downloading a book from a friend is bad, fine.
But at least have the decency to suggest that we ban the sale of used books, ban private libraries and install fingerprint scanners on kindles to prevent people from sharing them with friends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623586</id>
	<title>Updated link</title>
	<author>flaptrap</author>
	<datestamp>1262455800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/01/ebook.piracy/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/01/ebook.piracy/</a> [cnn.com] - the posted link having been removed.</p><p>"Within days, it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times".  And I thought 95.5565\% of statistics were made up on the spot.</p><p>I've also been known to read the books on the bookstore shelves.  One summer I decided to spend my lunch hours that way - if the comfy chair was empty, that is.  Oh, I bought a few for my shelves or as gifts, too.</p><p>But Open Source is about telling Microsoft and Apple etc. not to steal from academic or public-minded engineers.  It only stands to reason that one of the big players will take the chance to stick in a slur that is totally wrong but might sway an uninformed opinion.  What Open Source does is keep the source code from vanishing when the software support disappears.  This is what is good for everybody about it - everybody except for that company that does not want you to use this year what they sold you last year, but instead to purchase this year's product that comes with this year's strings attached - and still no source code.  Open Source totally allows a company to license, from the author, software to be used in a commercial project.</p><p>Copyright for authors gives them a similar reward.  Once you publish, you get your reward, and once the copyright expires, the public gets to keep your work, in the open, for everybody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/01/ebook.piracy/ [ cnn.com ] - the posted link having been removed .
" Within days , it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times " .
And I thought 95.5565 \ % of statistics were made up on the spot.I 've also been known to read the books on the bookstore shelves .
One summer I decided to spend my lunch hours that way - if the comfy chair was empty , that is .
Oh , I bought a few for my shelves or as gifts , too.But Open Source is about telling Microsoft and Apple etc .
not to steal from academic or public-minded engineers .
It only stands to reason that one of the big players will take the chance to stick in a slur that is totally wrong but might sway an uninformed opinion .
What Open Source does is keep the source code from vanishing when the software support disappears .
This is what is good for everybody about it - everybody except for that company that does not want you to use this year what they sold you last year , but instead to purchase this year 's product that comes with this year 's strings attached - and still no source code .
Open Source totally allows a company to license , from the author , software to be used in a commercial project.Copyright for authors gives them a similar reward .
Once you publish , you get your reward , and once the copyright expires , the public gets to keep your work , in the open , for everybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/01/ebook.piracy/ [cnn.com] - the posted link having been removed.
"Within days, it had been downloaded for free more than 100,000 times".
And I thought 95.5565\% of statistics were made up on the spot.I've also been known to read the books on the bookstore shelves.
One summer I decided to spend my lunch hours that way - if the comfy chair was empty, that is.
Oh, I bought a few for my shelves or as gifts, too.But Open Source is about telling Microsoft and Apple etc.
not to steal from academic or public-minded engineers.
It only stands to reason that one of the big players will take the chance to stick in a slur that is totally wrong but might sway an uninformed opinion.
What Open Source does is keep the source code from vanishing when the software support disappears.
This is what is good for everybody about it - everybody except for that company that does not want you to use this year what they sold you last year, but instead to purchase this year's product that comes with this year's strings attached - and still no source code.
Open Source totally allows a company to license, from the author, software to be used in a commercial project.Copyright for authors gives them a similar reward.
Once you publish, you get your reward, and once the copyright expires, the public gets to keep your work, in the open, for everybody.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622604</id>
	<title>Right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And proprietary (e.g. MS Windows) prevents piracy. I think I understand what this guy's saying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And proprietary ( e.g .
MS Windows ) prevents piracy .
I think I understand what this guy 's saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And proprietary (e.g.
MS Windows) prevents piracy.
I think I understand what this guy's saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624776</id>
	<title>Re:The real story should be. . .</title>
	<author>neutralstone</author>
	<datestamp>1262462400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?</p></div><p>Because the set of all irrationally terrified people includes voters and some (if not most) of the policy-makers that said voters elect.  It is therefore in everyone's interest for better-informed people to demonstrate and make clear the cases where an imagined threat is either (a) not real or (b) not severe enough to warrant action.  And those demonstrations must be delivered to the general public, and they must come as earl early and often as possible and grab as much attention as possible.</p><p>This is part of the reason why Sagan wrote <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Demon-Haunted\_World" title="wikipedia.org">The Demon-Haunted World</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something ? Because the set of all irrationally terrified people includes voters and some ( if not most ) of the policy-makers that said voters elect .
It is therefore in everyone 's interest for better-informed people to demonstrate and make clear the cases where an imagined threat is either ( a ) not real or ( b ) not severe enough to warrant action .
And those demonstrations must be delivered to the general public , and they must come as earl early and often as possible and grab as much attention as possible.This is part of the reason why Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?Because the set of all irrationally terrified people includes voters and some (if not most) of the policy-makers that said voters elect.
It is therefore in everyone's interest for better-informed people to demonstrate and make clear the cases where an imagined threat is either (a) not real or (b) not severe enough to warrant action.
And those demonstrations must be delivered to the general public, and they must come as earl early and often as possible and grab as much attention as possible.This is part of the reason why Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624286</id>
	<title>I expect better from slashdot.</title>
	<author>SleepingWaterBear</author>
	<datestamp>1262459280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers."</p></div><p>Which is completely unsurprising since the Kindle is expensive, meaning that the only people who would buy it are those who just have to have the newest coolest gadget, and those who read enough books to make the amortized cost of the Kindle worthwhile.  Since the Kindle is relatively expensive, and since it makes it a hassle to use books that aren't bought, I'd expect that most people who buy it are well enough off that it's worth their while to buy books out of convenience rather than pirating.  In other words, Kindle owners are a self selected sample of people who read lots of books, and are well enough off to pay for books rather than pirate them.</p><p>So, the fact that Kindle owners buy more books is more or less meaningless, and stating it here is the sort of scientifically careless reporting that is endemic to journalism.  Most sources, I figure they just don't know any better, but I expect better from Slashdot than this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
" Which is completely unsurprising since the Kindle is expensive , meaning that the only people who would buy it are those who just have to have the newest coolest gadget , and those who read enough books to make the amortized cost of the Kindle worthwhile .
Since the Kindle is relatively expensive , and since it makes it a hassle to use books that are n't bought , I 'd expect that most people who buy it are well enough off that it 's worth their while to buy books out of convenience rather than pirating .
In other words , Kindle owners are a self selected sample of people who read lots of books , and are well enough off to pay for books rather than pirate them.So , the fact that Kindle owners buy more books is more or less meaningless , and stating it here is the sort of scientifically careless reporting that is endemic to journalism .
Most sources , I figure they just do n't know any better , but I expect better from Slashdot than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
"Which is completely unsurprising since the Kindle is expensive, meaning that the only people who would buy it are those who just have to have the newest coolest gadget, and those who read enough books to make the amortized cost of the Kindle worthwhile.
Since the Kindle is relatively expensive, and since it makes it a hassle to use books that aren't bought, I'd expect that most people who buy it are well enough off that it's worth their while to buy books out of convenience rather than pirating.
In other words, Kindle owners are a self selected sample of people who read lots of books, and are well enough off to pay for books rather than pirate them.So, the fact that Kindle owners buy more books is more or less meaningless, and stating it here is the sort of scientifically careless reporting that is endemic to journalism.
Most sources, I figure they just don't know any better, but I expect better from Slashdot than this.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629262</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>garaged</author>
	<datestamp>1262453340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you do realize that the author received just a fraction of that money ? probably 20\%</p><p>capitalism is making people oversight a lot of things, and this was one of the lest important ones</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you do realize that the author received just a fraction of that money ?
probably 20 \ % capitalism is making people oversight a lot of things , and this was one of the lest important ones</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you do realize that the author received just a fraction of that money ?
probably 20\%capitalism is making people oversight a lot of things, and this was one of the lest important ones</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622536</id>
	<title>Artistic Ownership?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1262450040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd have said that was one of the main things you kept with Open Source.  The Open Source software I've originated has had fairly modest user bases but I've remained the lead developer.  The main way I think I'd lose artistic ownership is if somebody took over and developed / maintained the software better than me - in which case they'd deserve it.</p><p>Quite upsetting to see open source associated with piracy, etc but I can see how for somebody a) not necessarily as tech-literate as us and b) working closely with people in an intellectual property industry which is suddenly seeing an influx of strange new concepts, it might seem like they're part and parcel of the internet (and in some sense they are, they're just rather different things anyhow!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have said that was one of the main things you kept with Open Source .
The Open Source software I 've originated has had fairly modest user bases but I 've remained the lead developer .
The main way I think I 'd lose artistic ownership is if somebody took over and developed / maintained the software better than me - in which case they 'd deserve it.Quite upsetting to see open source associated with piracy , etc but I can see how for somebody a ) not necessarily as tech-literate as us and b ) working closely with people in an intellectual property industry which is suddenly seeing an influx of strange new concepts , it might seem like they 're part and parcel of the internet ( and in some sense they are , they 're just rather different things anyhow !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have said that was one of the main things you kept with Open Source.
The Open Source software I've originated has had fairly modest user bases but I've remained the lead developer.
The main way I think I'd lose artistic ownership is if somebody took over and developed / maintained the software better than me - in which case they'd deserve it.Quite upsetting to see open source associated with piracy, etc but I can see how for somebody a) not necessarily as tech-literate as us and b) working closely with people in an intellectual property industry which is suddenly seeing an influx of strange new concepts, it might seem like they're part and parcel of the internet (and in some sense they are, they're just rather different things anyhow!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624148</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262458560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm talking about people who write books, write or make music, movies, etc. If you have a family or want a life or good health you can't spend your time on the road touring nor can you afford to spend all your free time producing content for which you earn little income.</p></div><p>
You are ignoring the basic fact that most people who write books and write or make music don't make a living doing it.  I know a lot of people who do that.  The same is becoming true of movies.  We all know examples in music, so I won't relate them.   I'm sure we all have co-workers who are part time musicians.
</p><p>
An example from book publishing, I once met an author who was in the process of getting her fourth SF/Fantasy novel published.  I had noticed a couple of her previous book while browsing at Barnes and Noble.  When I met her she was working as a part time secretary for a professor.  None of her novels had resulted in what could be considered a full time salary for any length of time.  Yet her publisher was still publishing them, and she was still writing them.
</p><p>
I have a friend who spent a significant part of his net worth making a movie and trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to get it shown at major film festivals.
</p><p>
I have a friend who paints, and tries to sell his paintings online, for about $2500 a piece.  He maybe sells one a year.
</p><p>
So stop with the "I've gotta make a living at writing/making music/making movies" crap.  Most of the people who write/make music/make movies would do it even if there weren't going to be a big paycheck, because most of them don't get a big paycheck anyway.  Even with established artists (with rare exceptions) once the publisher has their cut, there's never much left for the artist.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm talking about people who write books , write or make music , movies , etc .
If you have a family or want a life or good health you ca n't spend your time on the road touring nor can you afford to spend all your free time producing content for which you earn little income .
You are ignoring the basic fact that most people who write books and write or make music do n't make a living doing it .
I know a lot of people who do that .
The same is becoming true of movies .
We all know examples in music , so I wo n't relate them .
I 'm sure we all have co-workers who are part time musicians .
An example from book publishing , I once met an author who was in the process of getting her fourth SF/Fantasy novel published .
I had noticed a couple of her previous book while browsing at Barnes and Noble .
When I met her she was working as a part time secretary for a professor .
None of her novels had resulted in what could be considered a full time salary for any length of time .
Yet her publisher was still publishing them , and she was still writing them .
I have a friend who spent a significant part of his net worth making a movie and trying ( mostly unsuccessfully ) to get it shown at major film festivals .
I have a friend who paints , and tries to sell his paintings online , for about $ 2500 a piece .
He maybe sells one a year .
So stop with the " I 've got ta make a living at writing/making music/making movies " crap .
Most of the people who write/make music/make movies would do it even if there were n't going to be a big paycheck , because most of them do n't get a big paycheck anyway .
Even with established artists ( with rare exceptions ) once the publisher has their cut , there 's never much left for the artist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm talking about people who write books, write or make music, movies, etc.
If you have a family or want a life or good health you can't spend your time on the road touring nor can you afford to spend all your free time producing content for which you earn little income.
You are ignoring the basic fact that most people who write books and write or make music don't make a living doing it.
I know a lot of people who do that.
The same is becoming true of movies.
We all know examples in music, so I won't relate them.
I'm sure we all have co-workers who are part time musicians.
An example from book publishing, I once met an author who was in the process of getting her fourth SF/Fantasy novel published.
I had noticed a couple of her previous book while browsing at Barnes and Noble.
When I met her she was working as a part time secretary for a professor.
None of her novels had resulted in what could be considered a full time salary for any length of time.
Yet her publisher was still publishing them, and she was still writing them.
I have a friend who spent a significant part of his net worth making a movie and trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to get it shown at major film festivals.
I have a friend who paints, and tries to sell his paintings online, for about $2500 a piece.
He maybe sells one a year.
So stop with the "I've gotta make a living at writing/making music/making movies" crap.
Most of the people who write/make music/make movies would do it even if there weren't going to be a big paycheck, because most of them don't get a big paycheck anyway.
Even with established artists (with rare exceptions) once the publisher has their cut, there's never much left for the artist.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625358</id>
	<title>Die Gedanken sind frei</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262465760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Die Gedanken sind frei<br>My thoughts freely flower<br>I think as I please<br>And this gives me power<br>No scholar can map them<br>No hunter can trap them<br>No man can deny<br>Die Gedanken sind frei</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Die Gedanken sind freiMy thoughts freely flowerI think as I pleaseAnd this gives me powerNo scholar can map themNo hunter can trap themNo man can denyDie Gedanken sind frei</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Die Gedanken sind freiMy thoughts freely flowerI think as I pleaseAnd this gives me powerNo scholar can map themNo hunter can trap themNo man can denyDie Gedanken sind frei</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624446</id>
	<title>Re:WTH is Sherman Alexie?</title>
	<author>klenwell</author>
	<datestamp>1262460240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really care about Sherman Alexie's opinion as a commentator on intellectual property in the digital age, or a lot of the politics topics he might opine on when he appears, for instance, as a guest on The Colbert Report.  But as a fiction writer, he is known and worthy of being known.  One of my favorite short stories, "What You Pawn I Will Redeem", is written by him.  It may even hold some key to his position on the topic, which is probably more complex than "open source is bad because I'm a filthy greedy novelist."  I'm on the radical edge of support for open source and digital culture, but some of their ramifications for society and culture scare me a bit, too.</p><p>Interestingly, his story is still available online on the New Yorker site:<br><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/04/21/030421fi\_fiction?currentPage=all" title="newyorker.com">http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/04/21/030421fi\_fiction?currentPage=all</a> [newyorker.com]</p><p>I recommend reading it, but only because it's a brilliant story.  I first read it in the magazine and bought the collection of short stories it later appeared in as a result of that exposure. I suppose this could have happened as a result of, say, a link to a free copy posted on the internet somewhere.  But, in fact, it would have a much greater probability of happening precisely because it appeared in the New Yorker and not at the end of a random link on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really care about Sherman Alexie 's opinion as a commentator on intellectual property in the digital age , or a lot of the politics topics he might opine on when he appears , for instance , as a guest on The Colbert Report .
But as a fiction writer , he is known and worthy of being known .
One of my favorite short stories , " What You Pawn I Will Redeem " , is written by him .
It may even hold some key to his position on the topic , which is probably more complex than " open source is bad because I 'm a filthy greedy novelist .
" I 'm on the radical edge of support for open source and digital culture , but some of their ramifications for society and culture scare me a bit , too.Interestingly , his story is still available online on the New Yorker site : http : //www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/04/21/030421fi \ _fiction ? currentPage = all [ newyorker.com ] I recommend reading it , but only because it 's a brilliant story .
I first read it in the magazine and bought the collection of short stories it later appeared in as a result of that exposure .
I suppose this could have happened as a result of , say , a link to a free copy posted on the internet somewhere .
But , in fact , it would have a much greater probability of happening precisely because it appeared in the New Yorker and not at the end of a random link on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really care about Sherman Alexie's opinion as a commentator on intellectual property in the digital age, or a lot of the politics topics he might opine on when he appears, for instance, as a guest on The Colbert Report.
But as a fiction writer, he is known and worthy of being known.
One of my favorite short stories, "What You Pawn I Will Redeem", is written by him.
It may even hold some key to his position on the topic, which is probably more complex than "open source is bad because I'm a filthy greedy novelist.
"  I'm on the radical edge of support for open source and digital culture, but some of their ramifications for society and culture scare me a bit, too.Interestingly, his story is still available online on the New Yorker site:http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/04/21/030421fi\_fiction?currentPage=all [newyorker.com]I recommend reading it, but only because it's a brilliant story.
I first read it in the magazine and bought the collection of short stories it later appeared in as a result of that exposure.
I suppose this could have happened as a result of, say, a link to a free copy posted on the internet somewhere.
But, in fact, it would have a much greater probability of happening precisely because it appeared in the New Yorker and not at the end of a random link on the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627578</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262436600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>standard slashdot routine, meanwhile, is to help yourself to everyone else's work.<br>If you expect content to be made, expect someone else to pay for it. Not you, you are special, you are born with the inate write to take for free what everyone else has to pay for to make your life special.<br>Such is the self-entitlement sleazebag attitude of the slashdot leech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>standard slashdot routine , meanwhile , is to help yourself to everyone else 's work.If you expect content to be made , expect someone else to pay for it .
Not you , you are special , you are born with the inate write to take for free what everyone else has to pay for to make your life special.Such is the self-entitlement sleazebag attitude of the slashdot leech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>standard slashdot routine, meanwhile, is to help yourself to everyone else's work.If you expect content to be made, expect someone else to pay for it.
Not you, you are special, you are born with the inate write to take for free what everyone else has to pay for to make your life special.Such is the self-entitlement sleazebag attitude of the slashdot leech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623686</id>
	<title>Re:Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And opinion of man who can't distinguish "open source" from "piracy" is soooo valuable... WHO CARES?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And opinion of man who ca n't distinguish " open source " from " piracy " is soooo valuable... WHO CARES ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And opinion of man who can't distinguish "open source" from "piracy" is soooo valuable... WHO CARES?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622190</id>
	<title>And this is a suprise ?</title>
	<author>amck</author>
	<datestamp>1262447220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ebook readers buy more paper books than other readers, and this is a suprise ?</p><p>Someone who is willing to spend 200-400 dollars on a e-reader is already a heavy reader, practically by definition. As much as I love my e-reader, there are a bunch of  books its not good for - photo books, textbooks (no, A4 pdfs on a Sony e-reader are not a good option.) And for my favourite authors, i'll buy the hardback and get it signed by the author, and then lend to friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ebook readers buy more paper books than other readers , and this is a suprise ? Someone who is willing to spend 200-400 dollars on a e-reader is already a heavy reader , practically by definition .
As much as I love my e-reader , there are a bunch of books its not good for - photo books , textbooks ( no , A4 pdfs on a Sony e-reader are not a good option .
) And for my favourite authors , i 'll buy the hardback and get it signed by the author , and then lend to friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ebook readers buy more paper books than other readers, and this is a suprise ?Someone who is willing to spend 200-400 dollars on a e-reader is already a heavy reader, practically by definition.
As much as I love my e-reader, there are a bunch of  books its not good for - photo books, textbooks (no, A4 pdfs on a Sony e-reader are not a good option.
) And for my favourite authors, i'll buy the hardback and get it signed by the author, and then lend to friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622214</id>
	<title>people like free stuff</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1262447460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see what open source has to do with it.  People, in general, like getting something for nothing.  Most people could care less about copyright.  If anything, the open source movement educates people about copyright.  The first thing people always ask is 'how can this be free?'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see what open source has to do with it .
People , in general , like getting something for nothing .
Most people could care less about copyright .
If anything , the open source movement educates people about copyright .
The first thing people always ask is 'how can this be free ?
' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see what open source has to do with it.
People, in general, like getting something for nothing.
Most people could care less about copyright.
If anything, the open source movement educates people about copyright.
The first thing people always ask is 'how can this be free?
'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627092</id>
	<title>Sherman Alexi and Storytelling</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1262433360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alexi is a superb public story teller as well as a novelist. He goes out of his way to instigate situations so that he can build a story around it later. He related a story at the Press CLub in DC of speaking at the same affair where Bill CLinton claimed to have a Cherokee grandmother. When it was his turn Alexi (a Cour D'alene indian) started with the obvious slam to Clinton "Some of us don't need to have a Cherokee grandmother." He claimed to fear reprisal the entire night, noting CLinton's large size. But when CLinton finally engaged him, instead of beating him said "You know somethin'? You're fuckin' funny." He related other stories along those lines.</p><p>My money says he's done the same here, instigating a situation wherein he can develop a fear of an outcome only to have it turn out not to be negative, and definitely be worth the telling.</p><p>Got to admit, it's a slick gimmick. What less would you expect from a writer who has a book out that has its own soundtrack in the absence of an intervening movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alexi is a superb public story teller as well as a novelist .
He goes out of his way to instigate situations so that he can build a story around it later .
He related a story at the Press CLub in DC of speaking at the same affair where Bill CLinton claimed to have a Cherokee grandmother .
When it was his turn Alexi ( a Cour D'alene indian ) started with the obvious slam to Clinton " Some of us do n't need to have a Cherokee grandmother .
" He claimed to fear reprisal the entire night , noting CLinton 's large size .
But when CLinton finally engaged him , instead of beating him said " You know somethin ' ?
You 're fuckin ' funny .
" He related other stories along those lines.My money says he 's done the same here , instigating a situation wherein he can develop a fear of an outcome only to have it turn out not to be negative , and definitely be worth the telling.Got to admit , it 's a slick gimmick .
What less would you expect from a writer who has a book out that has its own soundtrack in the absence of an intervening movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alexi is a superb public story teller as well as a novelist.
He goes out of his way to instigate situations so that he can build a story around it later.
He related a story at the Press CLub in DC of speaking at the same affair where Bill CLinton claimed to have a Cherokee grandmother.
When it was his turn Alexi (a Cour D'alene indian) started with the obvious slam to Clinton "Some of us don't need to have a Cherokee grandmother.
" He claimed to fear reprisal the entire night, noting CLinton's large size.
But when CLinton finally engaged him, instead of beating him said "You know somethin'?
You're fuckin' funny.
" He related other stories along those lines.My money says he's done the same here, instigating a situation wherein he can develop a fear of an outcome only to have it turn out not to be negative, and definitely be worth the telling.Got to admit, it's a slick gimmick.
What less would you expect from a writer who has a book out that has its own soundtrack in the absence of an intervening movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292</id>
	<title>The real story should be. . .</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1262448060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I'm always. . . impressed. . . by the ability of the 'news' media (and people in general) to turn things around completely ass-backwards. The anecdote that the CNN story leads off with is about the Dan Brown book "The Lost Symbol". The book sold millions of copies, but was pirated over a hundred thousand times in the first few days. To me, that says "9 out of 10 People willing to pay for stuff they *could* have downloaded for free". The *real* story, which CNN apparently wishes to ignore, is that the vast majority of people are honest, and wish to pay the authors whose books they like, *instead* of pirating. The *real* story is the pirates are the vast minority of people. Of course, that doesn't generate page views.</p><p>As for Sherman Alexie . . . why do I care if he (she?) is terrified? People get terrified about all sorts of irrational things. Many children are terrified of the dark. Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I 'm always .
. .
impressed. .
. by the ability of the 'news ' media ( and people in general ) to turn things around completely ass-backwards .
The anecdote that the CNN story leads off with is about the Dan Brown book " The Lost Symbol " .
The book sold millions of copies , but was pirated over a hundred thousand times in the first few days .
To me , that says " 9 out of 10 People willing to pay for stuff they * could * have downloaded for free " .
The * real * story , which CNN apparently wishes to ignore , is that the vast majority of people are honest , and wish to pay the authors whose books they like , * instead * of pirating .
The * real * story is the pirates are the vast minority of people .
Of course , that does n't generate page views.As for Sherman Alexie .
. .
why do I care if he ( she ?
) is terrified ?
People get terrified about all sorts of irrational things .
Many children are terrified of the dark .
Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I'm always.
. .
impressed. .
. by the ability of the 'news' media (and people in general) to turn things around completely ass-backwards.
The anecdote that the CNN story leads off with is about the Dan Brown book "The Lost Symbol".
The book sold millions of copies, but was pirated over a hundred thousand times in the first few days.
To me, that says "9 out of 10 People willing to pay for stuff they *could* have downloaded for free".
The *real* story, which CNN apparently wishes to ignore, is that the vast majority of people are honest, and wish to pay the authors whose books they like, *instead* of pirating.
The *real* story is the pirates are the vast minority of people.
Of course, that doesn't generate page views.As for Sherman Alexie .
. .
why do I care if he (she?
) is terrified?
People get terrified about all sorts of irrational things.
Many children are terrified of the dark.
Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625368</id>
	<title>Re:BZZZZT WRONG</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1262465820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While that is true... The open source community does respect authorship.  On the other hand, the culture does flourish on "free as in beer", despite a lot of lip service to "free as in speech", since you can't have "free as in speech" software without it being "free as in beer".</p><p>The sad fact is, open source encourages a sort of entitlement feeling from people.  RMS (Yes, I know.. there's a difference between Free software and open source, ignore it for this debate) himself encourages this attitude by claiming that all software should be free as in speech (thus also being free as in beer).</p><p>The open source movement has managed to create a nice ecosystem around charging for support, and that works pretty well for software.  However, most other forms of creative works (Music, movies, books) don't require technical or any other kind of support, so there simply is no avenue to earn revenue from other sources.</p><p>Simply put, open source doesn't apply to most creative works, but open source people fail to understand why it shouldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While that is true... The open source community does respect authorship .
On the other hand , the culture does flourish on " free as in beer " , despite a lot of lip service to " free as in speech " , since you ca n't have " free as in speech " software without it being " free as in beer " .The sad fact is , open source encourages a sort of entitlement feeling from people .
RMS ( Yes , I know.. there 's a difference between Free software and open source , ignore it for this debate ) himself encourages this attitude by claiming that all software should be free as in speech ( thus also being free as in beer ) .The open source movement has managed to create a nice ecosystem around charging for support , and that works pretty well for software .
However , most other forms of creative works ( Music , movies , books ) do n't require technical or any other kind of support , so there simply is no avenue to earn revenue from other sources.Simply put , open source does n't apply to most creative works , but open source people fail to understand why it should n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While that is true... The open source community does respect authorship.
On the other hand, the culture does flourish on "free as in beer", despite a lot of lip service to "free as in speech", since you can't have "free as in speech" software without it being "free as in beer".The sad fact is, open source encourages a sort of entitlement feeling from people.
RMS (Yes, I know.. there's a difference between Free software and open source, ignore it for this debate) himself encourages this attitude by claiming that all software should be free as in speech (thus also being free as in beer).The open source movement has managed to create a nice ecosystem around charging for support, and that works pretty well for software.
However, most other forms of creative works (Music, movies, books) don't require technical or any other kind of support, so there simply is no avenue to earn revenue from other sources.Simply put, open source doesn't apply to most creative works, but open source people fail to understand why it shouldn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627720</id>
	<title>2nd Time Round</title>
	<author>AmazingChicken</author>
	<datestamp>1262437740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just came back from Supper and had to return to this.... would be nice if the tables were turned.  If authors published serially in magazines then everyone would be happy, even the e-book retailers, since they support magazine subscriptions.  With copies of each chapter in each magazine, there would be no incentive to hot-copy the content, and readership would be even more broad.  And though the per-copy profit may be lower the chance to franchise a movie or two off of a good story line would be worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just came back from Supper and had to return to this.... would be nice if the tables were turned .
If authors published serially in magazines then everyone would be happy , even the e-book retailers , since they support magazine subscriptions .
With copies of each chapter in each magazine , there would be no incentive to hot-copy the content , and readership would be even more broad .
And though the per-copy profit may be lower the chance to franchise a movie or two off of a good story line would be worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just came back from Supper and had to return to this.... would be nice if the tables were turned.
If authors published serially in magazines then everyone would be happy, even the e-book retailers, since they support magazine subscriptions.
With copies of each chapter in each magazine, there would be no incentive to hot-copy the content, and readership would be even more broad.
And though the per-copy profit may be lower the chance to franchise a movie or two off of a good story line would be worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30631008</id>
	<title>From TFA</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1262524080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Recent statistics have shown that consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes. Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers."</i>

<p> Starting with Peanut Press and Palm OS device then Fictionwise and Palm, WM, and now iPod and B&amp;N, Amazon Kindle Format, I have purchased over 2000 books in the last 12 years. I used to be an avid library user, but it is so convenient just to buy the book and read it on my device that I don't go to the library much anymore. The most popular books are often not in stock at the library, you have to put a hold on them and wait your place in line before you get your chance to read them. Then because it's a new book you get 7 days to read it. At $9.99 for a best seller and if you wait a little the price is less I'll pick e books any day.

</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Recent statistics have shown that consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes .
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
" Starting with Peanut Press and Palm OS device then Fictionwise and Palm , WM , and now iPod and B&amp;N , Amazon Kindle Format , I have purchased over 2000 books in the last 12 years .
I used to be an avid library user , but it is so convenient just to buy the book and read it on my device that I do n't go to the library much anymore .
The most popular books are often not in stock at the library , you have to put a hold on them and wait your place in line before you get your chance to read them .
Then because it 's a new book you get 7 days to read it .
At $ 9.99 for a best seller and if you wait a little the price is less I 'll pick e books any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Recent statistics have shown that consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes.
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
"

 Starting with Peanut Press and Palm OS device then Fictionwise and Palm, WM, and now iPod and B&amp;N, Amazon Kindle Format, I have purchased over 2000 books in the last 12 years.
I used to be an avid library user, but it is so convenient just to buy the book and read it on my device that I don't go to the library much anymore.
The most popular books are often not in stock at the library, you have to put a hold on them and wait your place in line before you get your chance to read them.
Then because it's a new book you get 7 days to read it.
At $9.99 for a best seller and if you wait a little the price is less I'll pick e books any day.

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622738</id>
	<title>Re:The real story should be. . .</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1262451480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to wonder though, about those millions of people who bought "The Lost Symbol"... It would be easy to assume that they did so because they are good and honest people. But it could simply be that 9 out of 10 people don't have any idea where to find pirated digital books, or have access to do so.</p><p>In my eyes, the publishing market has always been about convenience. People, in general will pay for something <b>if it is convenient for them to do so.</b> As soon as it becomes more convenient to simply download it off the net (including the risk of breaking the law) they will. Sure, there are still lots of people willing to then buy the book after reading a pirated copy, but I'd be willing to bet it's a LOT less than 9 out of 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder though , about those millions of people who bought " The Lost Symbol " ... It would be easy to assume that they did so because they are good and honest people .
But it could simply be that 9 out of 10 people do n't have any idea where to find pirated digital books , or have access to do so.In my eyes , the publishing market has always been about convenience .
People , in general will pay for something if it is convenient for them to do so .
As soon as it becomes more convenient to simply download it off the net ( including the risk of breaking the law ) they will .
Sure , there are still lots of people willing to then buy the book after reading a pirated copy , but I 'd be willing to bet it 's a LOT less than 9 out of 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder though, about those millions of people who bought "The Lost Symbol"... It would be easy to assume that they did so because they are good and honest people.
But it could simply be that 9 out of 10 people don't have any idea where to find pirated digital books, or have access to do so.In my eyes, the publishing market has always been about convenience.
People, in general will pay for something if it is convenient for them to do so.
As soon as it becomes more convenient to simply download it off the net (including the risk of breaking the law) they will.
Sure, there are still lots of people willing to then buy the book after reading a pirated copy, but I'd be willing to bet it's a LOT less than 9 out of 10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622314</id>
	<title>Tie to Open Source is unsubstantiated</title>
	<author>RunzWithScissors</author>
	<datestamp>1262448180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people I know and work with in the open source community are probably the most piracy conscious people I know, mostly because of jack holes like this guy.  It bugs the hell out of me that people always tie open source and piracy when in fact, there could be nothing further from the truth.  I'm the first one to pay for things like GAMES for Linux, or quality e-books because I want people to produce more of them!  And honestly, there's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for your work.<br> <br>

I think ultimately this has nothing to do with Open Source and everything to do with people wanting something for nothing, and if they can get it, they'll take full advantage.  Likely the tie to Open Source comes from the fact that people who are extremely cost conscious are going to prefer Open Source products because they align with their pricing criteria (The same way illegal copies of products align with their pricing criteria)<br> <br>

-Runz</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people I know and work with in the open source community are probably the most piracy conscious people I know , mostly because of jack holes like this guy .
It bugs the hell out of me that people always tie open source and piracy when in fact , there could be nothing further from the truth .
I 'm the first one to pay for things like GAMES for Linux , or quality e-books because I want people to produce more of them !
And honestly , there 's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for your work .
I think ultimately this has nothing to do with Open Source and everything to do with people wanting something for nothing , and if they can get it , they 'll take full advantage .
Likely the tie to Open Source comes from the fact that people who are extremely cost conscious are going to prefer Open Source products because they align with their pricing criteria ( The same way illegal copies of products align with their pricing criteria ) -Runz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people I know and work with in the open source community are probably the most piracy conscious people I know, mostly because of jack holes like this guy.
It bugs the hell out of me that people always tie open source and piracy when in fact, there could be nothing further from the truth.
I'm the first one to pay for things like GAMES for Linux, or quality e-books because I want people to produce more of them!
And honestly, there's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for your work.
I think ultimately this has nothing to do with Open Source and everything to do with people wanting something for nothing, and if they can get it, they'll take full advantage.
Likely the tie to Open Source comes from the fact that people who are extremely cost conscious are going to prefer Open Source products because they align with their pricing criteria (The same way illegal copies of products align with their pricing criteria) 

-Runz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30626096</id>
	<title>For supporting the creative class</title>
	<author>webmadman</author>
	<datestamp>1262427060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, in Canada, we have this:
<a href="http://www.arcco.ca/" title="arcco.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.arcco.ca/</a> [arcco.ca]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>

Artist-Run Centres support artists, in part, by paying artists fees, thus allowing them to explore approaches to creating cultural dialogue (of which "entertainment", with all it's loaded cultural assumptions, is a subset) that don't require a salable product (such as installations, performances or other non-permanent works). There are other approaches, this is just one that I'm directly familiar with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in Canada , we have this : http : //www.arcco.ca/ [ arcco.ca ] .
Artist-Run Centres support artists , in part , by paying artists fees , thus allowing them to explore approaches to creating cultural dialogue ( of which " entertainment " , with all it 's loaded cultural assumptions , is a subset ) that do n't require a salable product ( such as installations , performances or other non-permanent works ) .
There are other approaches , this is just one that I 'm directly familiar with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in Canada, we have this:
http://www.arcco.ca/ [arcco.ca] .
Artist-Run Centres support artists, in part, by paying artists fees, thus allowing them to explore approaches to creating cultural dialogue (of which "entertainment", with all it's loaded cultural assumptions, is a subset) that don't require a salable product (such as installations, performances or other non-permanent works).
There are other approaches, this is just one that I'm directly familiar with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622794</id>
	<title>Re:Just missing the right term</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is also bullshit. The whole Internet itself is fundamentally a peer-to-peer network, and for now that remains true in spite of the attempts of big business to turn it into glorified cable TV. Artistic ownership has exactly as much to do peer-to-peer culture as it has to do with open-source culture, i.e. zilch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is also bullshit .
The whole Internet itself is fundamentally a peer-to-peer network , and for now that remains true in spite of the attempts of big business to turn it into glorified cable TV .
Artistic ownership has exactly as much to do peer-to-peer culture as it has to do with open-source culture , i.e .
zilch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is also bullshit.
The whole Internet itself is fundamentally a peer-to-peer network, and for now that remains true in spite of the attempts of big business to turn it into glorified cable TV.
Artistic ownership has exactly as much to do peer-to-peer culture as it has to do with open-source culture, i.e.
zilch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625692</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1262424420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he clearly understands it quite well, or at least its sociological effect. The concept of "artistic ownership" is an unfortunate consequence of an economic system that commidifies everything, even ideas. Open source represents something outside of capitalist production, producing for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use\_value" title="wikipedia.org">use value</a> [wikipedia.org] instead of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange\_value" title="wikipedia.org">exchange value</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Open source culture has indeed spread the idea that ideas shouldn't be treated like property, and should be proud that it demonstrates an alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he clearly understands it quite well , or at least its sociological effect .
The concept of " artistic ownership " is an unfortunate consequence of an economic system that commidifies everything , even ideas .
Open source represents something outside of capitalist production , producing for use value [ wikipedia.org ] instead of exchange value [ wikipedia.org ] .Open source culture has indeed spread the idea that ideas should n't be treated like property , and should be proud that it demonstrates an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he clearly understands it quite well, or at least its sociological effect.
The concept of "artistic ownership" is an unfortunate consequence of an economic system that commidifies everything, even ideas.
Open source represents something outside of capitalist production, producing for use value [wikipedia.org] instead of exchange value [wikipedia.org].Open source culture has indeed spread the idea that ideas shouldn't be treated like property, and should be proud that it demonstrates an alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627124</id>
	<title>Dear god....</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1262433540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... What a heap of drivel by a bunch of cry-babies.<br>
<br>
I have virtually unlimited access to media through piracy, be it books, music or movies &amp; series, yet i own hunderds of cd's &amp; dvd's, and a bunch of books too, if i like it, guess what? I frekking buy the thing! And i'm not talking about mp3's, avi's or ebooks (whatever those are stored in), but fysical hard copies on CD/LP, DVD &amp; dead trees.<br>
<br>
I refuse to pay money to download a stupid file though, the only one getting a dime from me for downloads is my ISP, because i need to get online.<br>
<br>
Off Topic:<br>
Since 1 Januari we in Belgium also have to pay a tax on digital storage media such as external hard drives, usb sticks, sd cards &amp; whatnot that serve to 'compensate piracy',  and the money is devided amonst the most 'popular' artists of that period, and you don't want to know what i think about those 'popular artists', trust me on that one,</htmltext>
<tokenext>... What a heap of drivel by a bunch of cry-babies .
I have virtually unlimited access to media through piracy , be it books , music or movies &amp; series , yet i own hunderds of cd 's &amp; dvd 's , and a bunch of books too , if i like it , guess what ?
I frekking buy the thing !
And i 'm not talking about mp3 's , avi 's or ebooks ( whatever those are stored in ) , but fysical hard copies on CD/LP , DVD &amp; dead trees .
I refuse to pay money to download a stupid file though , the only one getting a dime from me for downloads is my ISP , because i need to get online .
Off Topic : Since 1 Januari we in Belgium also have to pay a tax on digital storage media such as external hard drives , usb sticks , sd cards &amp; whatnot that serve to 'compensate piracy ' , and the money is devided amonst the most 'popular ' artists of that period , and you do n't want to know what i think about those 'popular artists ' , trust me on that one,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... What a heap of drivel by a bunch of cry-babies.
I have virtually unlimited access to media through piracy, be it books, music or movies &amp; series, yet i own hunderds of cd's &amp; dvd's, and a bunch of books too, if i like it, guess what?
I frekking buy the thing!
And i'm not talking about mp3's, avi's or ebooks (whatever those are stored in), but fysical hard copies on CD/LP, DVD &amp; dead trees.
I refuse to pay money to download a stupid file though, the only one getting a dime from me for downloads is my ISP, because i need to get online.
Off Topic:
Since 1 Januari we in Belgium also have to pay a tax on digital storage media such as external hard drives, usb sticks, sd cards &amp; whatnot that serve to 'compensate piracy',  and the money is devided amonst the most 'popular' artists of that period, and you don't want to know what i think about those 'popular artists', trust me on that one,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30630292</id>
	<title>Do the math</title>
	<author>LandGator</author>
	<datestamp>1262509680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read <a href="http://baen.com/library/palaver6.htm" title="baen.com">http://baen.com/library/palaver6.htm</a> [baen.com] for a factual demonstration that e-books increase *hardcover* sales of the *same titles*.  Next time Sherman Alexie's  speaking at Powell's, I'll do the math with him and 'splain a few things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read http : //baen.com/library/palaver6.htm [ baen.com ] for a factual demonstration that e-books increase * hardcover * sales of the * same titles * .
Next time Sherman Alexie 's speaking at Powell 's , I 'll do the math with him and 'splain a few things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read http://baen.com/library/palaver6.htm [baen.com] for a factual demonstration that e-books increase *hardcover* sales of the *same titles*.
Next time Sherman Alexie's  speaking at Powell's, I'll do the math with him and 'splain a few things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554</id>
	<title>Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi</title>
	<author>Jeeeb</author>
	<datestamp>1262450160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away."</p></div><p>

I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing. (I.e. artificial scarcity). It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.etc. whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.<br> <br>

Take the iPhone for example. The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference. The real difference is in the design - I.e. pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied. Yet another company can't just use that information without Apple's permission - I.e. they can't just go off an make their own iPhone. Is this "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity" bad?<br> <br>

Or take Windows or any other peace of commercial software. It's purely information so the fact that I'm not free to copy and use it as much as I want must be "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity". Is this bad?<br> <br>

The point is that making this information takes very real time and effort, whether it's designing a phone (or car or whatever), writing software, making a movie/song, or in this case writing a book. So what is so wrong with people having the right to demand payment for allowing people to utilise (Be it for entertainment, business or whatever) the information they have worked hard to create?<br> <br>

Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits to this right. But it seems that a lot of people just shout "Artificial scarcity" at anyone who raises their voice against piracy or whatever.<br> <br>

Now as for this guy, I think correlating the open source movement and piracy is stupid. People pirate stuff because they want things for free and the risks are so low. That's human nature, with or without the open-source movement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" With the open-source culture on the Internet , the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away .
" I 've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing .
( I.e. artificial scarcity ) .
It 's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc .
whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity .
Take the iPhone for example .
The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference .
The real difference is in the design - I.e .
pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied .
Yet another company ca n't just use that information without Apple 's permission - I.e .
they ca n't just go off an make their own iPhone .
Is this " taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity " bad ?
Or take Windows or any other peace of commercial software .
It 's purely information so the fact that I 'm not free to copy and use it as much as I want must be " taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity " .
Is this bad ?
The point is that making this information takes very real time and effort , whether it 's designing a phone ( or car or whatever ) , writing software , making a movie/song , or in this case writing a book .
So what is so wrong with people having the right to demand payment for allowing people to utilise ( Be it for entertainment , business or whatever ) the information they have worked hard to create ?
Now I 'm not saying there should n't be limits to this right .
But it seems that a lot of people just shout " Artificial scarcity " at anyone who raises their voice against piracy or whatever .
Now as for this guy , I think correlating the open source movement and piracy is stupid .
People pirate stuff because they want things for free and the risks are so low .
That 's human nature , with or without the open-source movement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away.
"

I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing.
(I.e. artificial scarcity).
It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc.
whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.
Take the iPhone for example.
The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference.
The real difference is in the design - I.e.
pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied.
Yet another company can't just use that information without Apple's permission - I.e.
they can't just go off an make their own iPhone.
Is this "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity" bad?
Or take Windows or any other peace of commercial software.
It's purely information so the fact that I'm not free to copy and use it as much as I want must be "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity".
Is this bad?
The point is that making this information takes very real time and effort, whether it's designing a phone (or car or whatever), writing software, making a movie/song, or in this case writing a book.
So what is so wrong with people having the right to demand payment for allowing people to utilise (Be it for entertainment, business or whatever) the information they have worked hard to create?
Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits to this right.
But it seems that a lot of people just shout "Artificial scarcity" at anyone who raises their voice against piracy or whatever.
Now as for this guy, I think correlating the open source movement and piracy is stupid.
People pirate stuff because they want things for free and the risks are so low.
That's human nature, with or without the open-source movement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627516</id>
	<title>Neil Gaiman and Baen have it right</title>
	<author>Fencepost</author>
	<datestamp>1262436180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Neil Gaiman has spoken at various times (e.g. <a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2008/come-see-neil-gaiman-talk-in-london-tonight" title="openrightsgroup.org">Neil Gaiman at Open Rights Group</a> [openrightsgroup.org]) about the fact that most of his readers found him free, then started to buy his books. Cory Doctorow summarizes this beautifully in the foreword to Little Brother (freely downloadable from <a href="http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/" title="craphound.com">Cory's Site</a> [craphound.com], read the section "The Copyright Thing."<blockquote><div><p>I recently saw Neil Gaiman give a talk at which someone asked him how he felt about piracy of his books. He said, "Hands up in the audience if you discovered your favorite writer for free -- because someone loaned you a copy, or because someone gave it to you? Now, hands up if you found your favorite writer by walking into a store and plunking down cash." Overwhelmingly, the audience said that they'd discovered their favorite writers for free, on a loan or as a gift. When it comes to my favorite writers, there's no boundaries: I'll buy every book they publish, just to own it (sometimes I buy two or three, to give away to friends who must read those books). I pay to see them live. I buy t-shirts with their book-covers on them. I'm a customer for life.</p><p>

Neil went on to say that he was part of the tribe of readers, the tiny minority of people in the world who read for pleasure, buying books because they love them. One thing he knows about everyone who downloads his books on the Internet without permission is that they're readers, they're people who love books.</p><p>

People who study the habits of music-buyers have discovered something curious: the biggest pirates are also the biggest spenders. If you pirate music all night long, chances are you're one of the few people left who also goes to the record store (remember those?) during the day. You probably go to concerts on the weekend, and you probably check music out of the library too. If you're a member of the red-hot music-fan tribe, you do lots of everything that has to do with music, from singing in the shower to paying for black-market vinyl bootlegs of rare Eastern European covers of your favorite death-metal band.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Baen with Webscriptions and its Free Library has been making e-books in multiple formats available for years. They've found that after an author puts a few books into the Free Library the sales of that author's backlist (including the freely-available books) rise. I suspect that they get more sales &amp; readers for Webscriptions as well - if I can buy individual ebooks for $6 or the entire set of releases for the month (up to 4 "frontlist" new publications plus some backlist) for $15, I might as well cough up the couple of extra books and see which writers I like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neil Gaiman has spoken at various times ( e.g .
Neil Gaiman at Open Rights Group [ openrightsgroup.org ] ) about the fact that most of his readers found him free , then started to buy his books .
Cory Doctorow summarizes this beautifully in the foreword to Little Brother ( freely downloadable from Cory 's Site [ craphound.com ] , read the section " The Copyright Thing .
" I recently saw Neil Gaiman give a talk at which someone asked him how he felt about piracy of his books .
He said , " Hands up in the audience if you discovered your favorite writer for free -- because someone loaned you a copy , or because someone gave it to you ?
Now , hands up if you found your favorite writer by walking into a store and plunking down cash .
" Overwhelmingly , the audience said that they 'd discovered their favorite writers for free , on a loan or as a gift .
When it comes to my favorite writers , there 's no boundaries : I 'll buy every book they publish , just to own it ( sometimes I buy two or three , to give away to friends who must read those books ) .
I pay to see them live .
I buy t-shirts with their book-covers on them .
I 'm a customer for life .
Neil went on to say that he was part of the tribe of readers , the tiny minority of people in the world who read for pleasure , buying books because they love them .
One thing he knows about everyone who downloads his books on the Internet without permission is that they 're readers , they 're people who love books .
People who study the habits of music-buyers have discovered something curious : the biggest pirates are also the biggest spenders .
If you pirate music all night long , chances are you 're one of the few people left who also goes to the record store ( remember those ?
) during the day .
You probably go to concerts on the weekend , and you probably check music out of the library too .
If you 're a member of the red-hot music-fan tribe , you do lots of everything that has to do with music , from singing in the shower to paying for black-market vinyl bootlegs of rare Eastern European covers of your favorite death-metal band .
Baen with Webscriptions and its Free Library has been making e-books in multiple formats available for years .
They 've found that after an author puts a few books into the Free Library the sales of that author 's backlist ( including the freely-available books ) rise .
I suspect that they get more sales &amp; readers for Webscriptions as well - if I can buy individual ebooks for $ 6 or the entire set of releases for the month ( up to 4 " frontlist " new publications plus some backlist ) for $ 15 , I might as well cough up the couple of extra books and see which writers I like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neil Gaiman has spoken at various times (e.g.
Neil Gaiman at Open Rights Group [openrightsgroup.org]) about the fact that most of his readers found him free, then started to buy his books.
Cory Doctorow summarizes this beautifully in the foreword to Little Brother (freely downloadable from Cory's Site [craphound.com], read the section "The Copyright Thing.
"I recently saw Neil Gaiman give a talk at which someone asked him how he felt about piracy of his books.
He said, "Hands up in the audience if you discovered your favorite writer for free -- because someone loaned you a copy, or because someone gave it to you?
Now, hands up if you found your favorite writer by walking into a store and plunking down cash.
" Overwhelmingly, the audience said that they'd discovered their favorite writers for free, on a loan or as a gift.
When it comes to my favorite writers, there's no boundaries: I'll buy every book they publish, just to own it (sometimes I buy two or three, to give away to friends who must read those books).
I pay to see them live.
I buy t-shirts with their book-covers on them.
I'm a customer for life.
Neil went on to say that he was part of the tribe of readers, the tiny minority of people in the world who read for pleasure, buying books because they love them.
One thing he knows about everyone who downloads his books on the Internet without permission is that they're readers, they're people who love books.
People who study the habits of music-buyers have discovered something curious: the biggest pirates are also the biggest spenders.
If you pirate music all night long, chances are you're one of the few people left who also goes to the record store (remember those?
) during the day.
You probably go to concerts on the weekend, and you probably check music out of the library too.
If you're a member of the red-hot music-fan tribe, you do lots of everything that has to do with music, from singing in the shower to paying for black-market vinyl bootlegs of rare Eastern European covers of your favorite death-metal band.
Baen with Webscriptions and its Free Library has been making e-books in multiple formats available for years.
They've found that after an author puts a few books into the Free Library the sales of that author's backlist (including the freely-available books) rise.
I suspect that they get more sales &amp; readers for Webscriptions as well - if I can buy individual ebooks for $6 or the entire set of releases for the month (up to 4 "frontlist" new publications plus some backlist) for $15, I might as well cough up the couple of extra books and see which writers I like.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622578</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't the Library already a way to get books fr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Gosh... books have been free to read for a very long time. It's called a library. So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why don't they cut libraries off</p></div> </blockquote><p>In many countries libraries pay a fee to authors each year in order to compensate them for the lost sales.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh... books have been free to read for a very long time .
It 's called a library .
So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why do n't they cut libraries off In many countries libraries pay a fee to authors each year in order to compensate them for the lost sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh... books have been free to read for a very long time.
It's called a library.
So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why don't they cut libraries off In many countries libraries pay a fee to authors each year in order to compensate them for the lost sales.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622564</id>
	<title>Re:The real story should be. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because there is a potential multi-billion dollar market involved in the intellectual property protection racket, which caters to that fear.</p><p>Sofware Piracy/Intellectual Property is the new "Terrorism!" being spun by the spindoctors in washington DC, and being pumped into the legislatures of other nations via shyster trade agreements they have made with our twisted government.</p><p>The other one is the whole "Green" movement. (Clarification, I am all for being more energy efficient and environmentally conscious, but I am not for increased legislation whose apparent sole purpose is to increase the obstacle to entry into the world marketplace, thus securing wealth for the already extant multinational corporations, which is likely to be one of the side effects of the cap and trade shell game that is being proposed.)</p><p>The blunt end of the sick is that this author's irrational fears fuel an agenda which IMPACTS you in a very real and dangerous way, and so you SHOULD be concerned about his bullshit political sortie, just as much if not more so than your concern over the presentation bias of the NewsCorp news outlets.</p><p>I don't like sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but you would have to be absurdly stupid to think that the media and publishing industries are not SERIOUSLY trying to pinch the government's ears over "free content" that the internet is currently able to provide. (It directly competes with their paid-services model, and is thus a threat.) This is exactly why they included the "open source" comment when it is not really applicable; it's a guilt by association logical fallacy intended to try and shoehorn public opinion away from a perfectly legal and legitimate market group toward a buy-in/lock-in model that they find preferential.  It's propaganda, pure and simple.</p><p>If there is propaganda, there is an agenda, and people who are actively pushing that agenda. Propaganda for no express purpose is nonsense, since it just creates noise in the advertisement channel, which is something that Newscorp and Co. (Hollywood, et al.) have invested a great deal of research money into. (effective advertisement, that is.)</p><p>For this reason, you are left with the nasty situation where some kind of conspiracy, (even if poorly hidden) must exist, with the goal of reshaping public interest and through that public interest chink, legitimizing bullshit IP laws that they would like to see enacted; otherwise they would never have gotten the green-light from their advertisement execs, since bad-mouthing open source would be wildly unpopular, given the rising popularity of the method. (Just look at the responses here on slashdot.)</p><p>The problem is that most of the public is uneducated about just what "Open source" is about, and have a hard time accepting that you can get a valuable commodity literally for free, and that the organizations that produce these products can continue to do this without imploding.  It is this incredulity that this propoganda is trying to target, by painting a picture that OSS as a culture gets offset by illegal benefits from piracy, rather than being corporately sponsored (Google and IBM), or created exclusively by volunteers (Most other projects).</p><p>If they can make that false connection with the general public, it will sour the milk, and make FOSS much harder to evangelize, while simultaneously reinforcing their own farce: That you get what you pay for, and that only by paying can you guarantee quality products.</p><p>Really, we shouldn't turn a blind and apathetic eye to this kind of shenanigan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is a potential multi-billion dollar market involved in the intellectual property protection racket , which caters to that fear.Sofware Piracy/Intellectual Property is the new " Terrorism !
" being spun by the spindoctors in washington DC , and being pumped into the legislatures of other nations via shyster trade agreements they have made with our twisted government.The other one is the whole " Green " movement .
( Clarification , I am all for being more energy efficient and environmentally conscious , but I am not for increased legislation whose apparent sole purpose is to increase the obstacle to entry into the world marketplace , thus securing wealth for the already extant multinational corporations , which is likely to be one of the side effects of the cap and trade shell game that is being proposed .
) The blunt end of the sick is that this author 's irrational fears fuel an agenda which IMPACTS you in a very real and dangerous way , and so you SHOULD be concerned about his bullshit political sortie , just as much if not more so than your concern over the presentation bias of the NewsCorp news outlets.I do n't like sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist , but you would have to be absurdly stupid to think that the media and publishing industries are not SERIOUSLY trying to pinch the government 's ears over " free content " that the internet is currently able to provide .
( It directly competes with their paid-services model , and is thus a threat .
) This is exactly why they included the " open source " comment when it is not really applicable ; it 's a guilt by association logical fallacy intended to try and shoehorn public opinion away from a perfectly legal and legitimate market group toward a buy-in/lock-in model that they find preferential .
It 's propaganda , pure and simple.If there is propaganda , there is an agenda , and people who are actively pushing that agenda .
Propaganda for no express purpose is nonsense , since it just creates noise in the advertisement channel , which is something that Newscorp and Co. ( Hollywood , et al .
) have invested a great deal of research money into .
( effective advertisement , that is .
) For this reason , you are left with the nasty situation where some kind of conspiracy , ( even if poorly hidden ) must exist , with the goal of reshaping public interest and through that public interest chink , legitimizing bullshit IP laws that they would like to see enacted ; otherwise they would never have gotten the green-light from their advertisement execs , since bad-mouthing open source would be wildly unpopular , given the rising popularity of the method .
( Just look at the responses here on slashdot .
) The problem is that most of the public is uneducated about just what " Open source " is about , and have a hard time accepting that you can get a valuable commodity literally for free , and that the organizations that produce these products can continue to do this without imploding .
It is this incredulity that this propoganda is trying to target , by painting a picture that OSS as a culture gets offset by illegal benefits from piracy , rather than being corporately sponsored ( Google and IBM ) , or created exclusively by volunteers ( Most other projects ) .If they can make that false connection with the general public , it will sour the milk , and make FOSS much harder to evangelize , while simultaneously reinforcing their own farce : That you get what you pay for , and that only by paying can you guarantee quality products.Really , we should n't turn a blind and apathetic eye to this kind of shenanigan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is a potential multi-billion dollar market involved in the intellectual property protection racket, which caters to that fear.Sofware Piracy/Intellectual Property is the new "Terrorism!
" being spun by the spindoctors in washington DC, and being pumped into the legislatures of other nations via shyster trade agreements they have made with our twisted government.The other one is the whole "Green" movement.
(Clarification, I am all for being more energy efficient and environmentally conscious, but I am not for increased legislation whose apparent sole purpose is to increase the obstacle to entry into the world marketplace, thus securing wealth for the already extant multinational corporations, which is likely to be one of the side effects of the cap and trade shell game that is being proposed.
)The blunt end of the sick is that this author's irrational fears fuel an agenda which IMPACTS you in a very real and dangerous way, and so you SHOULD be concerned about his bullshit political sortie, just as much if not more so than your concern over the presentation bias of the NewsCorp news outlets.I don't like sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but you would have to be absurdly stupid to think that the media and publishing industries are not SERIOUSLY trying to pinch the government's ears over "free content" that the internet is currently able to provide.
(It directly competes with their paid-services model, and is thus a threat.
) This is exactly why they included the "open source" comment when it is not really applicable; it's a guilt by association logical fallacy intended to try and shoehorn public opinion away from a perfectly legal and legitimate market group toward a buy-in/lock-in model that they find preferential.
It's propaganda, pure and simple.If there is propaganda, there is an agenda, and people who are actively pushing that agenda.
Propaganda for no express purpose is nonsense, since it just creates noise in the advertisement channel, which is something that Newscorp and Co. (Hollywood, et al.
) have invested a great deal of research money into.
(effective advertisement, that is.
)For this reason, you are left with the nasty situation where some kind of conspiracy, (even if poorly hidden) must exist, with the goal of reshaping public interest and through that public interest chink, legitimizing bullshit IP laws that they would like to see enacted; otherwise they would never have gotten the green-light from their advertisement execs, since bad-mouthing open source would be wildly unpopular, given the rising popularity of the method.
(Just look at the responses here on slashdot.
)The problem is that most of the public is uneducated about just what "Open source" is about, and have a hard time accepting that you can get a valuable commodity literally for free, and that the organizations that produce these products can continue to do this without imploding.
It is this incredulity that this propoganda is trying to target, by painting a picture that OSS as a culture gets offset by illegal benefits from piracy, rather than being corporately sponsored (Google and IBM), or created exclusively by volunteers (Most other projects).If they can make that false connection with the general public, it will sour the milk, and make FOSS much harder to evangelize, while simultaneously reinforcing their own farce: That you get what you pay for, and that only by paying can you guarantee quality products.Really, we shouldn't turn a blind and apathetic eye to this kind of shenanigan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623196</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>Nevynxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1262453760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You go back to patronage, and works are funded by the time spent creating them.

That kinda takes out a huge chunk of the middle men, but I'd argue that's a good thing for the creators.

Yes, I create, and yes, I publish under CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You go back to patronage , and works are funded by the time spent creating them .
That kinda takes out a huge chunk of the middle men , but I 'd argue that 's a good thing for the creators .
Yes , I create , and yes , I publish under CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You go back to patronage, and works are funded by the time spent creating them.
That kinda takes out a huge chunk of the middle men, but I'd argue that's a good thing for the creators.
Yes, I create, and yes, I publish under CC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622810</id>
	<title>Unlikely statistic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes. Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers."</p><p>Of course, they mean people who own an e-reader buy more books from the MAKER of that e-reader, not in general. I'm sure people without Kindles don't exclusively buy books from Amazon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes .
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
" Of course , they mean people who own an e-reader buy more books from the MAKER of that e-reader , not in general .
I 'm sure people without Kindles do n't exclusively buy books from Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes.
Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
"Of course, they mean people who own an e-reader buy more books from the MAKER of that e-reader, not in general.
I'm sure people without Kindles don't exclusively buy books from Amazon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622244</id>
	<title>Kinda late</title>
	<author>F0RR</author>
	<datestamp>1262447700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, i started reading my totally illegal ebooks, like, 6-7 years ago. So, what is this all about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , i started reading my totally illegal ebooks , like , 6-7 years ago .
So , what is this all about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, i started reading my totally illegal ebooks, like, 6-7 years ago.
So, what is this all about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623658</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't the Library already a way to get books fr</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262456160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why don't they cut libraries off?</p></div><p>They would very much love to do so. Problem is, they legally can't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why do n't they cut libraries off ? They would very much love to do so .
Problem is , they legally ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why don't they cut libraries off?They would very much love to do so.
Problem is, they legally can't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623566</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up!</p><p>I've always wondered why so many slashdot readers feel entitled to someone else's hard work for nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up ! I 've always wondered why so many slashdot readers feel entitled to someone else 's hard work for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!I've always wondered why so many slashdot readers feel entitled to someone else's hard work for nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624732</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like whiny bitching to me. Just like the RIAA &amp; MPAA, Alexie doesn't understand that technology can't be stopped; the genie's out of the bottle, and the wish was for digital technology that makes sharing media (anything, and I mean ANYTHING) that can be digitized can be duplicated and shared with ANYONE. The fact that AACS (the Blu-Ray encryption) was broken within days, if not HOURS, means that anything that can be encrypted can also be decrypted fairly easily with enough computing power and any piece of hardware that is designed to decrypt it. The only way to securely encrypt something is to make sure that YOU, the owner, are the ONLY one who has the algorithm to decrypt it; selling a DVD or Blu-Ray player puts the capability to decrypt it in the hands of a hacker who can reverse-engineer the software that decrypts it....just like books sold on Kindles can be decrypted, printed out in paperback form, and distributed.</p><p>*This* is why the RIAA and MPAA are dying a slow, painful death, and their pain is being taken out on consumers...the corporate bigwig that had to sell his 3rd yacht because of "declining CD sales" is finding his cash cow drying up; people WILL buy CDs if they want an "original" of the disc, but all the crap that's being shoveled out of studios is being "taste tested" before people buy it, and only the *good* tracks are being purchased through the iTunes store, rather than whole CDs...skip the crap and save a dollar or two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like whiny bitching to me .
Just like the RIAA &amp; MPAA , Alexie does n't understand that technology ca n't be stopped ; the genie 's out of the bottle , and the wish was for digital technology that makes sharing media ( anything , and I mean ANYTHING ) that can be digitized can be duplicated and shared with ANYONE .
The fact that AACS ( the Blu-Ray encryption ) was broken within days , if not HOURS , means that anything that can be encrypted can also be decrypted fairly easily with enough computing power and any piece of hardware that is designed to decrypt it .
The only way to securely encrypt something is to make sure that YOU , the owner , are the ONLY one who has the algorithm to decrypt it ; selling a DVD or Blu-Ray player puts the capability to decrypt it in the hands of a hacker who can reverse-engineer the software that decrypts it....just like books sold on Kindles can be decrypted , printed out in paperback form , and distributed .
* This * is why the RIAA and MPAA are dying a slow , painful death , and their pain is being taken out on consumers...the corporate bigwig that had to sell his 3rd yacht because of " declining CD sales " is finding his cash cow drying up ; people WILL buy CDs if they want an " original " of the disc , but all the crap that 's being shoveled out of studios is being " taste tested " before people buy it , and only the * good * tracks are being purchased through the iTunes store , rather than whole CDs...skip the crap and save a dollar or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like whiny bitching to me.
Just like the RIAA &amp; MPAA, Alexie doesn't understand that technology can't be stopped; the genie's out of the bottle, and the wish was for digital technology that makes sharing media (anything, and I mean ANYTHING) that can be digitized can be duplicated and shared with ANYONE.
The fact that AACS (the Blu-Ray encryption) was broken within days, if not HOURS, means that anything that can be encrypted can also be decrypted fairly easily with enough computing power and any piece of hardware that is designed to decrypt it.
The only way to securely encrypt something is to make sure that YOU, the owner, are the ONLY one who has the algorithm to decrypt it; selling a DVD or Blu-Ray player puts the capability to decrypt it in the hands of a hacker who can reverse-engineer the software that decrypts it....just like books sold on Kindles can be decrypted, printed out in paperback form, and distributed.
*This* is why the RIAA and MPAA are dying a slow, painful death, and their pain is being taken out on consumers...the corporate bigwig that had to sell his 3rd yacht because of "declining CD sales" is finding his cash cow drying up; people WILL buy CDs if they want an "original" of the disc, but all the crap that's being shoveled out of studios is being "taste tested" before people buy it, and only the *good* tracks are being purchased through the iTunes store, rather than whole CDs...skip the crap and save a dollar or two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627326</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1262434860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution to the problem of getting food on the tables of starving artists and roofs over their heads, is to get everyone food and roofs. Throw in clothes, public transportation and Internet, and any real artist will happily feed the worlds minds with their talent.</p><p>The free market can't provide basic sustenance for everyone, but a little socialism could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to the problem of getting food on the tables of starving artists and roofs over their heads , is to get everyone food and roofs .
Throw in clothes , public transportation and Internet , and any real artist will happily feed the worlds minds with their talent.The free market ca n't provide basic sustenance for everyone , but a little socialism could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to the problem of getting food on the tables of starving artists and roofs over their heads, is to get everyone food and roofs.
Throw in clothes, public transportation and Internet, and any real artist will happily feed the worlds minds with their talent.The free market can't provide basic sustenance for everyone, but a little socialism could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623552</id>
	<title>Ideological and ethical divide</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1262455620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing unusual to see here, folks, move along... it's just your garden variety ideological spat between what's-mine-is-yours cooperation-minded soci... errr, <i>mutualists</i> and dog-eat-dog competition-minded pi... errr, <i>capitalists</i> - the latter represented here by some hare-brained self-important writer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing unusual to see here , folks , move along... it 's just your garden variety ideological spat between what 's-mine-is-yours cooperation-minded soci... errr , mutualists and dog-eat-dog competition-minded pi... errr , capitalists - the latter represented here by some hare-brained self-important writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing unusual to see here, folks, move along... it's just your garden variety ideological spat between what's-mine-is-yours cooperation-minded soci... errr, mutualists and dog-eat-dog competition-minded pi... errr, capitalists - the latter represented here by some hare-brained self-important writer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622834</id>
	<title>The low figure is a surprise!</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1262451900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon sells on the order of 100M books per year, and has on the order of 100M unique customers. That means the average book sales rate is just one book per customer per year. So Kindle owners are only buying three books per year? That's not something to shout about!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon sells on the order of 100M books per year , and has on the order of 100M unique customers .
That means the average book sales rate is just one book per customer per year .
So Kindle owners are only buying three books per year ?
That 's not something to shout about !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon sells on the order of 100M books per year, and has on the order of 100M unique customers.
That means the average book sales rate is just one book per customer per year.
So Kindle owners are only buying three books per year?
That's not something to shout about!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622666</id>
	<title>Re:If the formula is flawed the result means nothi</title>
	<author>elhondo</author>
	<datestamp>1262450880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if you've ever read a Dan Brown novel, but I can certainly state from first hand experience that after doing so, I'm now far less likely to buy any of his other works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you 've ever read a Dan Brown novel , but I can certainly state from first hand experience that after doing so , I 'm now far less likely to buy any of his other works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you've ever read a Dan Brown novel, but I can certainly state from first hand experience that after doing so, I'm now far less likely to buy any of his other works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622652</id>
	<title>Those bloddy Piraterians</title>
	<author>antikristian</author>
	<datestamp>1262450820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can understand that writers are worried about this new threat.
<br>
<br>
Now millions of people can easily get books for free without paying anything for them.
<br>
It's like a gigantic library of free books!! Nobody will buy books if they can get them from a library, right?
<br>
<br>
The conspiracy theory about open source on the other hand, is just to stupid to comment on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand that writers are worried about this new threat .
Now millions of people can easily get books for free without paying anything for them .
It 's like a gigantic library of free books ! !
Nobody will buy books if they can get them from a library , right ?
The conspiracy theory about open source on the other hand , is just to stupid to comment on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand that writers are worried about this new threat.
Now millions of people can easily get books for free without paying anything for them.
It's like a gigantic library of free books!!
Nobody will buy books if they can get them from a library, right?
The conspiracy theory about open source on the other hand, is just to stupid to comment on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625158</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1262464620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your logic escapes me.  I understand technology very well and I understand his concern.  Piracy is much easier and cheaper in a digital world than in a print world.  It is a threat to the business of content creators (authors) and their publishers.  Ads won't pay the bills.  All the clowns on this site who think people should or can work for free or a pittance need to get of their mommas' basements and try to support a family.</p></div><p>Aren't those clowns called authors?  Not every author has best-seller credentials backing their latest project.  And, consequently, there are some seriously lean times ahead of any new author - even some established authors.  Yet we still have authors writing despite the uncertain economics of it all.</p><p>How much of a threat "piracy" represents is very much up to debate.  But clearly the quoted author has no concept of the technology - right down to naming "open-source".  They're full of fear for a mystery that they have no insight or understanding.  The author offers no insight that uncovers that mystery as a boogie-man or real threat.</p><p>The problem is that content industry representatives see every case of copyright infringement as a lost sale.  So while there are statistics that show quite decent sales figures, the industry reps focus on "loss sales" and paint a picture of doom and gloom.</p><p>With said doom and gloom on the horizon, authors are spooked.  J.K. Rowling avoids eBooks because of this fear.  Yet I have a digital facsimile of every one of her Harry Potter series.  I also have the entire collection in hardback on shelves but the digital (DRM free) files are much easier to carry around and read.  I suppose she's doomed.  But does she has the publishing industry or people like me to thank for it?</p><p>Book authors are yet another content producer being dragged in to the digital age.  I doubt they're going the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.  But individual publishing houses might.  The question is, will they drag their feet like the music industry has for the past millennium or will they look forward and figure out how to gracefully make that transition and start making money?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your logic escapes me .
I understand technology very well and I understand his concern .
Piracy is much easier and cheaper in a digital world than in a print world .
It is a threat to the business of content creators ( authors ) and their publishers .
Ads wo n't pay the bills .
All the clowns on this site who think people should or can work for free or a pittance need to get of their mommas ' basements and try to support a family.Are n't those clowns called authors ?
Not every author has best-seller credentials backing their latest project .
And , consequently , there are some seriously lean times ahead of any new author - even some established authors .
Yet we still have authors writing despite the uncertain economics of it all.How much of a threat " piracy " represents is very much up to debate .
But clearly the quoted author has no concept of the technology - right down to naming " open-source " .
They 're full of fear for a mystery that they have no insight or understanding .
The author offers no insight that uncovers that mystery as a boogie-man or real threat.The problem is that content industry representatives see every case of copyright infringement as a lost sale .
So while there are statistics that show quite decent sales figures , the industry reps focus on " loss sales " and paint a picture of doom and gloom.With said doom and gloom on the horizon , authors are spooked .
J.K. Rowling avoids eBooks because of this fear .
Yet I have a digital facsimile of every one of her Harry Potter series .
I also have the entire collection in hardback on shelves but the digital ( DRM free ) files are much easier to carry around and read .
I suppose she 's doomed .
But does she has the publishing industry or people like me to thank for it ? Book authors are yet another content producer being dragged in to the digital age .
I doubt they 're going the way of the buggy whip manufacturers .
But individual publishing houses might .
The question is , will they drag their feet like the music industry has for the past millennium or will they look forward and figure out how to gracefully make that transition and start making money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your logic escapes me.
I understand technology very well and I understand his concern.
Piracy is much easier and cheaper in a digital world than in a print world.
It is a threat to the business of content creators (authors) and their publishers.
Ads won't pay the bills.
All the clowns on this site who think people should or can work for free or a pittance need to get of their mommas' basements and try to support a family.Aren't those clowns called authors?
Not every author has best-seller credentials backing their latest project.
And, consequently, there are some seriously lean times ahead of any new author - even some established authors.
Yet we still have authors writing despite the uncertain economics of it all.How much of a threat "piracy" represents is very much up to debate.
But clearly the quoted author has no concept of the technology - right down to naming "open-source".
They're full of fear for a mystery that they have no insight or understanding.
The author offers no insight that uncovers that mystery as a boogie-man or real threat.The problem is that content industry representatives see every case of copyright infringement as a lost sale.
So while there are statistics that show quite decent sales figures, the industry reps focus on "loss sales" and paint a picture of doom and gloom.With said doom and gloom on the horizon, authors are spooked.
J.K. Rowling avoids eBooks because of this fear.
Yet I have a digital facsimile of every one of her Harry Potter series.
I also have the entire collection in hardback on shelves but the digital (DRM free) files are much easier to carry around and read.
I suppose she's doomed.
But does she has the publishing industry or people like me to thank for it?Book authors are yet another content producer being dragged in to the digital age.
I doubt they're going the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.
But individual publishing houses might.
The question is, will they drag their feet like the music industry has for the past millennium or will they look forward and figure out how to gracefully make that transition and start making money?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622528</id>
	<title>Amazon should correct for income bias</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262449980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i> Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.</i>"</p><p>Whenever I hear something like this, I always feel like there is either a will to mislead or a statistical idiot on the other end. This would be much more impressive a statistic if it were statistically controlled for income.</p><p>I think it is a reasonable presumption that Kindle owners are wealthier (or have more wealthier relatives) than the average person. If they have the money to put $ 259 on a Kindle, they probably have the money to buy more paper books as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
" Whenever I hear something like this , I always feel like there is either a will to mislead or a statistical idiot on the other end .
This would be much more impressive a statistic if it were statistically controlled for income.I think it is a reasonable presumption that Kindle owners are wealthier ( or have more wealthier relatives ) than the average person .
If they have the money to put $ 259 on a Kindle , they probably have the money to buy more paper books as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
"Whenever I hear something like this, I always feel like there is either a will to mislead or a statistical idiot on the other end.
This would be much more impressive a statistic if it were statistically controlled for income.I think it is a reasonable presumption that Kindle owners are wealthier (or have more wealthier relatives) than the average person.
If they have the money to put $ 259 on a Kindle, they probably have the money to buy more paper books as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623306</id>
	<title>Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi</title>
	<author>Random BedHead Ed</author>
	<datestamp>1262454420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away."</p></div><p>I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing. (I.e. artificial scarcity). It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.etc. whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.</p></div><p>It's worth noting that grandparent does not criticize artificial scarcity, just calls it what it is in order to contradict the novelist's claim that it is a form of property. Whatever grandparent's opinion on the value of copyright may be, the statement that it is not like physical property under US law is correct.

</p><p>I rather like copyright, particularly as I'm an aspiring novelist, but I have no illusions that it's a type of property or that my novel should be "mine" forever should I be fortunate enough to get it published. I recognize that copyright is just a limited right that I'll get to exercise for a long span after the work is released.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" With the open-source culture on the Internet , the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away .
" I 've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing .
( I.e. artificial scarcity ) .
It 's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc .
whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.It 's worth noting that grandparent does not criticize artificial scarcity , just calls it what it is in order to contradict the novelist 's claim that it is a form of property .
Whatever grandparent 's opinion on the value of copyright may be , the statement that it is not like physical property under US law is correct .
I rather like copyright , particularly as I 'm an aspiring novelist , but I have no illusions that it 's a type of property or that my novel should be " mine " forever should I be fortunate enough to get it published .
I recognize that copyright is just a limited right that I 'll get to exercise for a long span after the work is released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away.
"I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing.
(I.e. artificial scarcity).
It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc.
whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.It's worth noting that grandparent does not criticize artificial scarcity, just calls it what it is in order to contradict the novelist's claim that it is a form of property.
Whatever grandparent's opinion on the value of copyright may be, the statement that it is not like physical property under US law is correct.
I rather like copyright, particularly as I'm an aspiring novelist, but I have no illusions that it's a type of property or that my novel should be "mine" forever should I be fortunate enough to get it published.
I recognize that copyright is just a limited right that I'll get to exercise for a long span after the work is released.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623408</id>
	<title>Re:Poor broadband on the Rez?</title>
	<author>brianeisley</author>
	<datestamp>1262455020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. First thing I thought when I read this was that he needed to talk to Cory Doctorow.</p><p>However, Doctorow told me when I met him that he'd publicly debated another copyright zealot, Harlan Ellison, and it didn't go well at all. Although that may just have been because of Harlan being his usual Harlan self.</p><p>

b.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
First thing I thought when I read this was that he needed to talk to Cory Doctorow.However , Doctorow told me when I met him that he 'd publicly debated another copyright zealot , Harlan Ellison , and it did n't go well at all .
Although that may just have been because of Harlan being his usual Harlan self .
b .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
First thing I thought when I read this was that he needed to talk to Cory Doctorow.However, Doctorow told me when I met him that he'd publicly debated another copyright zealot, Harlan Ellison, and it didn't go well at all.
Although that may just have been because of Harlan being his usual Harlan self.
b.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623582</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've all read the Art of Programming, and are therefore all artists. Q.E.D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've all read the Art of Programming , and are therefore all artists .
Q.E.D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've all read the Art of Programming, and are therefore all artists.
Q.E.D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623394</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Monkeyboy4</author>
	<datestamp>1262454900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are very few if any full time artists/writers/musicians on this website, and they are not well represented here.</p></div><p>Do they need to be?  It's not like writers/artists/musicians are traditionally known for understanding the <b>business</b> of publishing music/art/literature.  They just know how the system screws them.

</p><p> Let's see - the artists feel screwed.  The purchaser feels screwed.  Hmm... maybe the distributes are screwing both of them in order to squeeze money out of both ends? </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are very few if any full time artists/writers/musicians on this website , and they are not well represented here.Do they need to be ?
It 's not like writers/artists/musicians are traditionally known for understanding the business of publishing music/art/literature .
They just know how the system screws them .
Let 's see - the artists feel screwed .
The purchaser feels screwed .
Hmm... maybe the distributes are screwing both of them in order to squeeze money out of both ends ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are very few if any full time artists/writers/musicians on this website, and they are not well represented here.Do they need to be?
It's not like writers/artists/musicians are traditionally known for understanding the business of publishing music/art/literature.
They just know how the system screws them.
Let's see - the artists feel screwed.
The purchaser feels screwed.
Hmm... maybe the distributes are screwing both of them in order to squeeze money out of both ends? 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622600</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1262450400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The books I respect I buy in hard cover, largely Pratchett and reference books The ones that will enjoy and read casually I want to carry around I buy in paperback. If they really wanted to promote sales they would include an electronic copy with the purchase.</p></div></blockquote><p>As an example of this, last time I bought a hardbound Honor Harrington novel, a CD was included with electronic copies of ALL the Honor Harrington books.  Very nice, wish more publishers than Baen would do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The books I respect I buy in hard cover , largely Pratchett and reference books The ones that will enjoy and read casually I want to carry around I buy in paperback .
If they really wanted to promote sales they would include an electronic copy with the purchase.As an example of this , last time I bought a hardbound Honor Harrington novel , a CD was included with electronic copies of ALL the Honor Harrington books .
Very nice , wish more publishers than Baen would do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The books I respect I buy in hard cover, largely Pratchett and reference books The ones that will enjoy and read casually I want to carry around I buy in paperback.
If they really wanted to promote sales they would include an electronic copy with the purchase.As an example of this, last time I bought a hardbound Honor Harrington novel, a CD was included with electronic copies of ALL the Honor Harrington books.
Very nice, wish more publishers than Baen would do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622610</id>
	<title>Re:The real story should be. . .</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1262450520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The *real* story, which CNN apparently wishes to ignore, is that the vast majority of people are honest, and wish to pay the authors whose books they like, *instead* of pirating.</p></div><p>Not to mention "in addition to", I don't remember the last time I bought a DVD/BluRay without already having seen the movie or series. But I'll gladly admit there's things I haven't paid for, particularly if I'd rather like a refund of the time I wasted on it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The * real * story , which CNN apparently wishes to ignore , is that the vast majority of people are honest , and wish to pay the authors whose books they like , * instead * of pirating.Not to mention " in addition to " , I do n't remember the last time I bought a DVD/BluRay without already having seen the movie or series .
But I 'll gladly admit there 's things I have n't paid for , particularly if I 'd rather like a refund of the time I wasted on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The *real* story, which CNN apparently wishes to ignore, is that the vast majority of people are honest, and wish to pay the authors whose books they like, *instead* of pirating.Not to mention "in addition to", I don't remember the last time I bought a DVD/BluRay without already having seen the movie or series.
But I'll gladly admit there's things I haven't paid for, particularly if I'd rather like a refund of the time I wasted on it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625354</id>
	<title>Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262465760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody has the right to profit. If you build a snowman, you can't complain that nobody pays you for it even though it does improve the landscape. You have the right to try to profit, but society has no obligation to bend backwards for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody has the right to profit .
If you build a snowman , you ca n't complain that nobody pays you for it even though it does improve the landscape .
You have the right to try to profit , but society has no obligation to bend backwards for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody has the right to profit.
If you build a snowman, you can't complain that nobody pays you for it even though it does improve the landscape.
You have the right to try to profit, but society has no obligation to bend backwards for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30638520</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Peter Nikolic</author>
	<datestamp>1262597460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>several things spring to mind instantly</p><p>One :  We now live in a world where homes are so sparsely furnished there is no room to keep books<br>Two :  People say they don't have time  these days to sit around reading books  everyone seems to have to run to some predefined schedule<br>Three : Maybe the novel itself was not up to scratch so was not purchased hence sales are low</p><p>Karma : Terrible   (am i bovered) no i love it cus i aint affraid of calling a cunt a cunt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>several things spring to mind instantlyOne : We now live in a world where homes are so sparsely furnished there is no room to keep booksTwo : People say they do n't have time these days to sit around reading books everyone seems to have to run to some predefined scheduleThree : Maybe the novel itself was not up to scratch so was not purchased hence sales are lowKarma : Terrible ( am i bovered ) no i love it cus i aint affraid of calling a cunt a cunt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>several things spring to mind instantlyOne :  We now live in a world where homes are so sparsely furnished there is no room to keep booksTwo :  People say they don't have time  these days to sit around reading books  everyone seems to have to run to some predefined scheduleThree : Maybe the novel itself was not up to scratch so was not purchased hence sales are lowKarma : Terrible   (am i bovered) no i love it cus i aint affraid of calling a cunt a cunt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622648</id>
	<title>The real question ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in all of this is "Do writers get the same royalties when a e-book is sold as they do when a paper book is sold ?". If so then the fact that three times as many books were sold is good news for them. If not then it just points out that it's the publishers who are ripping them off. Of course it's bad news for the paper and printing industries but wonderful news for those who dislike the role of publishers as gate keepers and those who wish a copy of books that have gone out of print.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in all of this is " Do writers get the same royalties when a e-book is sold as they do when a paper book is sold ? " .
If so then the fact that three times as many books were sold is good news for them .
If not then it just points out that it 's the publishers who are ripping them off .
Of course it 's bad news for the paper and printing industries but wonderful news for those who dislike the role of publishers as gate keepers and those who wish a copy of books that have gone out of print .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in all of this is "Do writers get the same royalties when a e-book is sold as they do when a paper book is sold ?".
If so then the fact that three times as many books were sold is good news for them.
If not then it just points out that it's the publishers who are ripping them off.
Of course it's bad news for the paper and printing industries but wonderful news for those who dislike the role of publishers as gate keepers and those who wish a copy of books that have gone out of print.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622542</id>
	<title>Against artistic ownership</title>
	<author>MSTCrow5429</author>
	<datestamp>1262450100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Artistic "ownership" is an abuse of the term.  You can own physical property, such as a painting or book, but you can't "own" an idea or concept, and then morally prevent others from using their own property as they see fit.  Intellectual property is a government sanctioned abuse of property rights.  Such an innovation must be opposed on principled grounds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Artistic " ownership " is an abuse of the term .
You can own physical property , such as a painting or book , but you ca n't " own " an idea or concept , and then morally prevent others from using their own property as they see fit .
Intellectual property is a government sanctioned abuse of property rights .
Such an innovation must be opposed on principled grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artistic "ownership" is an abuse of the term.
You can own physical property, such as a painting or book, but you can't "own" an idea or concept, and then morally prevent others from using their own property as they see fit.
Intellectual property is a government sanctioned abuse of property rights.
Such an innovation must be opposed on principled grounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30628776</id>
	<title>English ... do you speak it ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CNN story quotes Ana Maria Allessi, publisher for Harper Media at HarperCollins: "we have to be vigilant in our punishment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but much more attractive is to simply make the technology better, legally."   How does one become vigilant in punishment ?<br>Does anyone speak English ?   This from an editor ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CNN story quotes Ana Maria Allessi , publisher for Harper Media at HarperCollins : " we have to be vigilant in our punishment ... but much more attractive is to simply make the technology better , legally .
" How does one become vigilant in punishment ? Does anyone speak English ?
This from an editor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CNN story quotes Ana Maria Allessi, publisher for Harper Media at HarperCollins: "we have to be vigilant in our punishment ... but much more attractive is to simply make the technology better, legally.
"   How does one become vigilant in punishment ?Does anyone speak English ?
This from an editor ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623454</id>
	<title>books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I buy all my books used, mostly ebay for less than $3 each. I paid about $300 dollars for $4000 worth of books. Maybe if they didn't price their books at $50-75 each people would buy more. If I have to pay $75 I would rather download the rfc or online documentation and struggle for a few weeks learning it that way. I bought one pdf book (jogl) but actually have trouble reading books on the computer, I prefer a physical book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I buy all my books used , mostly ebay for less than $ 3 each .
I paid about $ 300 dollars for $ 4000 worth of books .
Maybe if they did n't price their books at $ 50-75 each people would buy more .
If I have to pay $ 75 I would rather download the rfc or online documentation and struggle for a few weeks learning it that way .
I bought one pdf book ( jogl ) but actually have trouble reading books on the computer , I prefer a physical book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I buy all my books used, mostly ebay for less than $3 each.
I paid about $300 dollars for $4000 worth of books.
Maybe if they didn't price their books at $50-75 each people would buy more.
If I have to pay $75 I would rather download the rfc or online documentation and struggle for a few weeks learning it that way.
I bought one pdf book (jogl) but actually have trouble reading books on the computer, I prefer a physical book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623412</id>
	<title>The Role of Society in Society</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1262455020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik31-2009dec31,0,7045615.column" title="latimes.com">article</a> [latimes.com] up at the LA Times about Peter Drucker. If you don't know, Druker was an economist who said things like:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The enterprise exists on sufferance and exists only as long as the society and the economy believe that it does a necessary, useful, and productive job.</p></div><p>As pointed out above by noidentity and others, people who have risen in the economic hierarchy thanks to institutions built by the people for the people owe their success to society's edifices as much as themselves. Sure someone may be a talented corporate cost-cutter with the nickname "Chainsaw" or a writer nobody has ever heard of, but they would be flipping burgers if it wasn't for the artificial man-made constructs of incorporation and copyright.</p><p>There's an implicit Ann Rand-ian quality to Alexie's thinking: progress for all depends on the special qualities of a few geniuses who naturally deserve the good life. Putting aside the fact that most admirers of Rand ignore that her elite characters all had a social conscience and gave back, few people who claim to be rainmakers stop to consider where they got the water that makes the rain.</p><p>But that's all background really, the issue that Alexie is talking about is the economic value of what he does. That value is assigned by society and I think it's fair to say that the generation growing up doesn't see as much value in it as he does. And they may have a point. Upsetting as it may be to artists, would the world fall apart if it was even harder to make a living doing what they do? Did Avatar give us free electricity? Feed Africa?</p><p>The artistic community might also want to ask itself if copyright had not been extended to ridiculous lengths and more books that people actually want to read were in the public domain, would that have prevented a lot of piracy? Experience has shown that where legal alternatives exist for people to get what they want they will chose those alternatives. I don't think too many people explicitly know how many works they have been denied by copyright reform but I think they can sense it.</p><p>The conflict we have now exists because this generation's instincts clash with the status quo. It remains to be seen whether or not the interests represented by Rupert Murdoch`s media machine can keep the lid on things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an article [ latimes.com ] up at the LA Times about Peter Drucker .
If you do n't know , Druker was an economist who said things like : The enterprise exists on sufferance and exists only as long as the society and the economy believe that it does a necessary , useful , and productive job.As pointed out above by noidentity and others , people who have risen in the economic hierarchy thanks to institutions built by the people for the people owe their success to society 's edifices as much as themselves .
Sure someone may be a talented corporate cost-cutter with the nickname " Chainsaw " or a writer nobody has ever heard of , but they would be flipping burgers if it was n't for the artificial man-made constructs of incorporation and copyright.There 's an implicit Ann Rand-ian quality to Alexie 's thinking : progress for all depends on the special qualities of a few geniuses who naturally deserve the good life .
Putting aside the fact that most admirers of Rand ignore that her elite characters all had a social conscience and gave back , few people who claim to be rainmakers stop to consider where they got the water that makes the rain.But that 's all background really , the issue that Alexie is talking about is the economic value of what he does .
That value is assigned by society and I think it 's fair to say that the generation growing up does n't see as much value in it as he does .
And they may have a point .
Upsetting as it may be to artists , would the world fall apart if it was even harder to make a living doing what they do ?
Did Avatar give us free electricity ?
Feed Africa ? The artistic community might also want to ask itself if copyright had not been extended to ridiculous lengths and more books that people actually want to read were in the public domain , would that have prevented a lot of piracy ?
Experience has shown that where legal alternatives exist for people to get what they want they will chose those alternatives .
I do n't think too many people explicitly know how many works they have been denied by copyright reform but I think they can sense it.The conflict we have now exists because this generation 's instincts clash with the status quo .
It remains to be seen whether or not the interests represented by Rupert Murdoch ` s media machine can keep the lid on things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an article [latimes.com] up at the LA Times about Peter Drucker.
If you don't know, Druker was an economist who said things like:The enterprise exists on sufferance and exists only as long as the society and the economy believe that it does a necessary, useful, and productive job.As pointed out above by noidentity and others, people who have risen in the economic hierarchy thanks to institutions built by the people for the people owe their success to society's edifices as much as themselves.
Sure someone may be a talented corporate cost-cutter with the nickname "Chainsaw" or a writer nobody has ever heard of, but they would be flipping burgers if it wasn't for the artificial man-made constructs of incorporation and copyright.There's an implicit Ann Rand-ian quality to Alexie's thinking: progress for all depends on the special qualities of a few geniuses who naturally deserve the good life.
Putting aside the fact that most admirers of Rand ignore that her elite characters all had a social conscience and gave back, few people who claim to be rainmakers stop to consider where they got the water that makes the rain.But that's all background really, the issue that Alexie is talking about is the economic value of what he does.
That value is assigned by society and I think it's fair to say that the generation growing up doesn't see as much value in it as he does.
And they may have a point.
Upsetting as it may be to artists, would the world fall apart if it was even harder to make a living doing what they do?
Did Avatar give us free electricity?
Feed Africa?The artistic community might also want to ask itself if copyright had not been extended to ridiculous lengths and more books that people actually want to read were in the public domain, would that have prevented a lot of piracy?
Experience has shown that where legal alternatives exist for people to get what they want they will chose those alternatives.
I don't think too many people explicitly know how many works they have been denied by copyright reform but I think they can sense it.The conflict we have now exists because this generation's instincts clash with the status quo.
It remains to be seen whether or not the interests represented by Rupert Murdoch`s media machine can keep the lid on things.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623898</id>
	<title>Artistic Ownership != $$</title>
	<author>shashark</author>
	<datestamp>1262457360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1&gt; Lower cost of distribution and reach means:<br>
-- lower barriers to entry<br>
-- more artists can produce &amp; reach their market<br>
-- hence more supply. <br>
-- it also means more demand due to lower costs, easier consumption (think straight to itunes &gt; iphone model)
<br> <br>
2&gt; More supply means less insane profits for what used to be the 'media conglomerates'
<br> <br>
3&gt; More demand (for quality content) ensures the artists making the right content win. And the ones who don't lose. That's why Hollywood had the best year last year - yet the hit:flop ratio still didn't improve much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 &gt; Lower cost of distribution and reach means : -- lower barriers to entry -- more artists can produce &amp; reach their market -- hence more supply .
-- it also means more demand due to lower costs , easier consumption ( think straight to itunes &gt; iphone model ) 2 &gt; More supply means less insane profits for what used to be the 'media conglomerates ' 3 &gt; More demand ( for quality content ) ensures the artists making the right content win .
And the ones who do n't lose .
That 's why Hollywood had the best year last year - yet the hit : flop ratio still did n't improve much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1&gt; Lower cost of distribution and reach means:
-- lower barriers to entry
-- more artists can produce &amp; reach their market
-- hence more supply.
-- it also means more demand due to lower costs, easier consumption (think straight to itunes &gt; iphone model)
 
2&gt; More supply means less insane profits for what used to be the 'media conglomerates'
 
3&gt; More demand (for quality content) ensures the artists making the right content win.
And the ones who don't lose.
That's why Hollywood had the best year last year - yet the hit:flop ratio still didn't improve much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629618</id>
	<title>Re:100,000 times?</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1262457960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And do they think that means lost sales? Do they believe 100K people would have bought the book in 24 hours? Ludicrous!  People who are real readers don't sit in front of their computers reading from their monitors - at least not the ones I know - they recline with a book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do they think that means lost sales ?
Do they believe 100K people would have bought the book in 24 hours ?
Ludicrous ! People who are real readers do n't sit in front of their computers reading from their monitors - at least not the ones I know - they recline with a book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And do they think that means lost sales?
Do they believe 100K people would have bought the book in 24 hours?
Ludicrous!  People who are real readers don't sit in front of their computers reading from their monitors - at least not the ones I know - they recline with a book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622934</id>
	<title>Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi</title>
	<author>devent</author>
	<datestamp>1262452260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody is saying that copyright is bad (well, not me at least). But copyright, thanks to you in the USA*, is now basically indefinitely.</p><p>Copyright is a balance act, benefiting the creator and ripping of the public culture</p><p>* because of you exporting the idea of an indefinitely copyright to all Europe and rest of the world. In addition to the ridiculous flight safety laws. Thank you very much America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody is saying that copyright is bad ( well , not me at least ) .
But copyright , thanks to you in the USA * , is now basically indefinitely.Copyright is a balance act , benefiting the creator and ripping of the public culture * because of you exporting the idea of an indefinitely copyright to all Europe and rest of the world .
In addition to the ridiculous flight safety laws .
Thank you very much America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody is saying that copyright is bad (well, not me at least).
But copyright, thanks to you in the USA*, is now basically indefinitely.Copyright is a balance act, benefiting the creator and ripping of the public culture* because of you exporting the idea of an indefinitely copyright to all Europe and rest of the world.
In addition to the ridiculous flight safety laws.
Thank you very much America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623182</id>
	<title>Re:Poor broadband on the Rez?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read a of his books. They're really just collections of short stories, sometimes loosely tited together by having the same characters in them. I've found that the content itself is usually a little uneven, but when you do come across one of the better stories, they truly do shine. He's also adapted a few of his things into screenplays, going as fas as to direct them himself. While "The Business of Fancy Dancing" was ungodly boring, I recommend everyone take a look at "Smoke Signals". Really, even in his writing, he doesn't portray reservations as bad as they are... not even close.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read a of his books .
They 're really just collections of short stories , sometimes loosely tited together by having the same characters in them .
I 've found that the content itself is usually a little uneven , but when you do come across one of the better stories , they truly do shine .
He 's also adapted a few of his things into screenplays , going as fas as to direct them himself .
While " The Business of Fancy Dancing " was ungodly boring , I recommend everyone take a look at " Smoke Signals " .
Really , even in his writing , he does n't portray reservations as bad as they are... not even close .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read a of his books.
They're really just collections of short stories, sometimes loosely tited together by having the same characters in them.
I've found that the content itself is usually a little uneven, but when you do come across one of the better stories, they truly do shine.
He's also adapted a few of his things into screenplays, going as fas as to direct them himself.
While "The Business of Fancy Dancing" was ungodly boring, I recommend everyone take a look at "Smoke Signals".
Really, even in his writing, he doesn't portray reservations as bad as they are... not even close.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623630</id>
	<title>Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1262455980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing. (I.e. artificial scarcity).</p></div><p>"The right to profit of your creation" doesn't necessarily imply "artificial scarcity", that's just one of the (many) models we've found for it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.etc. whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.</p></div><p>Not really. Most of the world's code never sees the light outside the company that wrote it, so even if the whole model of "artificial scarcity" were to be outlawed tomorrow, the software engineering field wouldn't be affected much in terms of employement.</p><p>And yes, all the examples you mention are bad. There are ways to finance innovation without restricting others' rights, they may not work for everybody, but neither does the "artificial scarcity" model and we at least are fed up with its restrictions already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing .
( I.e. artificial scarcity ) .
" The right to profit of your creation " does n't necessarily imply " artificial scarcity " , that 's just one of the ( many ) models we 've found for it.It 's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc .
whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.Not really .
Most of the world 's code never sees the light outside the company that wrote it , so even if the whole model of " artificial scarcity " were to be outlawed tomorrow , the software engineering field would n't be affected much in terms of employement.And yes , all the examples you mention are bad .
There are ways to finance innovation without restricting others ' rights , they may not work for everybody , but neither does the " artificial scarcity " model and we at least are fed up with its restrictions already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing.
(I.e. artificial scarcity).
"The right to profit of your creation" doesn't necessarily imply "artificial scarcity", that's just one of the (many) models we've found for it.It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc.
whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.Not really.
Most of the world's code never sees the light outside the company that wrote it, so even if the whole model of "artificial scarcity" were to be outlawed tomorrow, the software engineering field wouldn't be affected much in terms of employement.And yes, all the examples you mention are bad.
There are ways to finance innovation without restricting others' rights, they may not work for everybody, but neither does the "artificial scarcity" model and we at least are fed up with its restrictions already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623484</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>FatSean</author>
	<datestamp>1262455320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly a good analogy.  Your end users pay your bills, you must listen to them or you go out of business.  If the posters don't like how you provide your content, they'll get content from someone else.</p><p>Your business model is not protected by law, or rather, it should not be protected by law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly a good analogy .
Your end users pay your bills , you must listen to them or you go out of business .
If the posters do n't like how you provide your content , they 'll get content from someone else.Your business model is not protected by law , or rather , it should not be protected by law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly a good analogy.
Your end users pay your bills, you must listen to them or you go out of business.
If the posters don't like how you provide your content, they'll get content from someone else.Your business model is not protected by law, or rather, it should not be protected by law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622560</id>
	<title>Re:The real story should be. . .</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1262450220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The *real* story is the pirates are the vast minority of people</p></div><p>You mean to say that there are lots and lots of pirates, even if they aren't the majority?  Maybe 49\% is a vast minority.  10\% might be a small minority vast is the opposite of tiny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The * real * story is the pirates are the vast minority of peopleYou mean to say that there are lots and lots of pirates , even if they are n't the majority ?
Maybe 49 \ % is a vast minority .
10 \ % might be a small minority vast is the opposite of tiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The *real* story is the pirates are the vast minority of peopleYou mean to say that there are lots and lots of pirates, even if they aren't the majority?
Maybe 49\% is a vast minority.
10\% might be a small minority vast is the opposite of tiny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625498</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1262423280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"I'd be really worried if I were Stephen King..."</p><p>He should have said: "I'd be enormously more successful than I really am, and very happy if I were Stephen King...".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'd be really worried if I were Stephen King... " He should have said : " I 'd be enormously more successful than I really am , and very happy if I were Stephen King... " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"I'd be really worried if I were Stephen King..."He should have said: "I'd be enormously more successful than I really am, and very happy if I were Stephen King...".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623112</id>
	<title>Re:And this is a suprise ?</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1262453280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ebook readers buy more paper books than other readers, and this is a suprise ?
<br> <br>
Someone who is willing to spend 200-400 dollars on a e-reader is already a heavy reader, practically by definition.</p></div><p>Not to mention that when you can buy books directly through your reader/computer the barrier for doing so is lessened. Seeing a book that looks interesting, to purchasing a copy of said book is lowered (in my opinion), when all you need to do is press a few buttons and said book is all ready to go for your enjoyment. Kinda how I bought five games off <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/" title="steampowered.com">Steam</a> [steampowered.com] this holiday season simply because it was a good deal (or so I have convinced myself). If I had to go down to a shop to look at what bargains or items they had in stock chances are that I wouldn't have bought as many, or maybe even none at all since I am too occupied (read: bloody lazy) to go down there. <br> <br>At some future point I will get myself an e-reader and I reckon that, just like when I got Steam, the number of products I purchase will increase dramatically (though it should be added that the arrival of steam happened around the same time that my financial situation improved and allowed for more purchases of that nature). Right now I buy a book now and again, or several if I discover a new author that I enjoy, but for the most part I shall admit that I am far less inclined to just "grabbing a random book off the shelves" as I was a few years back. With the practicality of being seeing a book referenced in a blog/review/article/etc and buying said book within seconds I can imagine by digital library will grow rapidly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ebook readers buy more paper books than other readers , and this is a suprise ?
Someone who is willing to spend 200-400 dollars on a e-reader is already a heavy reader , practically by definition.Not to mention that when you can buy books directly through your reader/computer the barrier for doing so is lessened .
Seeing a book that looks interesting , to purchasing a copy of said book is lowered ( in my opinion ) , when all you need to do is press a few buttons and said book is all ready to go for your enjoyment .
Kinda how I bought five games off Steam [ steampowered.com ] this holiday season simply because it was a good deal ( or so I have convinced myself ) .
If I had to go down to a shop to look at what bargains or items they had in stock chances are that I would n't have bought as many , or maybe even none at all since I am too occupied ( read : bloody lazy ) to go down there .
At some future point I will get myself an e-reader and I reckon that , just like when I got Steam , the number of products I purchase will increase dramatically ( though it should be added that the arrival of steam happened around the same time that my financial situation improved and allowed for more purchases of that nature ) .
Right now I buy a book now and again , or several if I discover a new author that I enjoy , but for the most part I shall admit that I am far less inclined to just " grabbing a random book off the shelves " as I was a few years back .
With the practicality of being seeing a book referenced in a blog/review/article/etc and buying said book within seconds I can imagine by digital library will grow rapidly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ebook readers buy more paper books than other readers, and this is a suprise ?
Someone who is willing to spend 200-400 dollars on a e-reader is already a heavy reader, practically by definition.Not to mention that when you can buy books directly through your reader/computer the barrier for doing so is lessened.
Seeing a book that looks interesting, to purchasing a copy of said book is lowered (in my opinion), when all you need to do is press a few buttons and said book is all ready to go for your enjoyment.
Kinda how I bought five games off Steam [steampowered.com] this holiday season simply because it was a good deal (or so I have convinced myself).
If I had to go down to a shop to look at what bargains or items they had in stock chances are that I wouldn't have bought as many, or maybe even none at all since I am too occupied (read: bloody lazy) to go down there.
At some future point I will get myself an e-reader and I reckon that, just like when I got Steam, the number of products I purchase will increase dramatically (though it should be added that the arrival of steam happened around the same time that my financial situation improved and allowed for more purchases of that nature).
Right now I buy a book now and again, or several if I discover a new author that I enjoy, but for the most part I shall admit that I am far less inclined to just "grabbing a random book off the shelves" as I was a few years back.
With the practicality of being seeing a book referenced in a blog/review/article/etc and buying said book within seconds I can imagine by digital library will grow rapidly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623192</id>
	<title>Re:If the formula is flawed the result means nothi</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1262453760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dan Brown doesn't sell other products, so one can't say that he'll sell concert tickets, t-shirts etc instead</p></div><p>Not to sure about that. Didn't they just make a movie of the sequel to DVC?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dan Brown does n't sell other products , so one ca n't say that he 'll sell concert tickets , t-shirts etc insteadNot to sure about that .
Did n't they just make a movie of the sequel to DVC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dan Brown doesn't sell other products, so one can't say that he'll sell concert tickets, t-shirts etc insteadNot to sure about that.
Didn't they just make a movie of the sequel to DVC?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622514</id>
	<title>WTH is Sherman Alexie?</title>
	<author>Uzik2</author>
	<datestamp>1262449860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and why do we care about his opinion? It's trivial to find an "expert" who will give you any opinion you want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and why do we care about his opinion ?
It 's trivial to find an " expert " who will give you any opinion you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and why do we care about his opinion?
It's trivial to find an "expert" who will give you any opinion you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622844</id>
	<title>Alexie's comments were in a Colbert Show interview</title>
	<author>CyrusHellborg</author>
	<datestamp>1262451960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alexie's comments were in a Colbert Show interview. I saw the show, which is on Hulu if anyone is getting peppy about researching this.

I saw him speak at the Seattle Center a few days after the Sept 11 attacks. Sherman Alexie's entire schtick and world view is backward facing. No wonder a domain of inquiry residing more in the 21st century than in the 18th is frightening to him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alexie 's comments were in a Colbert Show interview .
I saw the show , which is on Hulu if anyone is getting peppy about researching this .
I saw him speak at the Seattle Center a few days after the Sept 11 attacks .
Sherman Alexie 's entire schtick and world view is backward facing .
No wonder a domain of inquiry residing more in the 21st century than in the 18th is frightening to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alexie's comments were in a Colbert Show interview.
I saw the show, which is on Hulu if anyone is getting peppy about researching this.
I saw him speak at the Seattle Center a few days after the Sept 11 attacks.
Sherman Alexie's entire schtick and world view is backward facing.
No wonder a domain of inquiry residing more in the 21st century than in the 18th is frightening to him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624288</id>
	<title>Re:When you don't understand something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262459280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"While e-book piracy might be an issue, my personal opinion on piracy (of all types of content) is that the only way to effectively lessen it is to have good online stores where those with the inclination and economical capacity to do so can legally purchase such articles."</p><p>Translation, I can't be bothered to go to the worlds biggest online store and buy my books, but I might be convinced if they were priced such that the authors make no money, but I can feel better about throwing a few pennies a book.</p><p>This is the argument for music piracy too and it is wrong there too.  As a songwriter, I get paid when people buy my music, not when they go to the artists concerts (i.e., the thing people always claim they do...we didn't buy the CD, but we went to the show).  Authors are even more affected by this...they don't have the chance to make their money doing a public reading.</p><p>"Draconian DRM systems does not work, or only works to a very limited extent while making life harder and less enjoyable for those that actually do want to buy their products legally."</p><p>Draconian?  The Kindle DRM has been broken for YEARS...B&amp;N?  Same...Adobe? Yup.  I've transfered everything I bought on my Kindle (and sent back) to my Nook.  Hell, I don't even feel bad about downloading books I PAID FOR.  I've never even worked that hard to get rid of the DRM on these things, there are apps out there that do it for you...sadly, to get my Kindle books now (i.e., when they don't have what I need in B&amp;N's store), I have to download it from Amazon, and use my iPhone to grab the files (i.e., you have to do a backup, and then extract the file from said backup).  Not hard, but tedious.</p><p>Anyhoo...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" While e-book piracy might be an issue , my personal opinion on piracy ( of all types of content ) is that the only way to effectively lessen it is to have good online stores where those with the inclination and economical capacity to do so can legally purchase such articles .
" Translation , I ca n't be bothered to go to the worlds biggest online store and buy my books , but I might be convinced if they were priced such that the authors make no money , but I can feel better about throwing a few pennies a book.This is the argument for music piracy too and it is wrong there too .
As a songwriter , I get paid when people buy my music , not when they go to the artists concerts ( i.e. , the thing people always claim they do...we did n't buy the CD , but we went to the show ) .
Authors are even more affected by this...they do n't have the chance to make their money doing a public reading .
" Draconian DRM systems does not work , or only works to a very limited extent while making life harder and less enjoyable for those that actually do want to buy their products legally. " Draconian ?
The Kindle DRM has been broken for YEARS...B&amp;N ?
Same...Adobe ? Yup .
I 've transfered everything I bought on my Kindle ( and sent back ) to my Nook .
Hell , I do n't even feel bad about downloading books I PAID FOR .
I 've never even worked that hard to get rid of the DRM on these things , there are apps out there that do it for you...sadly , to get my Kindle books now ( i.e. , when they do n't have what I need in B&amp;N 's store ) , I have to download it from Amazon , and use my iPhone to grab the files ( i.e. , you have to do a backup , and then extract the file from said backup ) .
Not hard , but tedious.Anyhoo.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"While e-book piracy might be an issue, my personal opinion on piracy (of all types of content) is that the only way to effectively lessen it is to have good online stores where those with the inclination and economical capacity to do so can legally purchase such articles.
"Translation, I can't be bothered to go to the worlds biggest online store and buy my books, but I might be convinced if they were priced such that the authors make no money, but I can feel better about throwing a few pennies a book.This is the argument for music piracy too and it is wrong there too.
As a songwriter, I get paid when people buy my music, not when they go to the artists concerts (i.e., the thing people always claim they do...we didn't buy the CD, but we went to the show).
Authors are even more affected by this...they don't have the chance to make their money doing a public reading.
"Draconian DRM systems does not work, or only works to a very limited extent while making life harder and less enjoyable for those that actually do want to buy their products legally."Draconian?
The Kindle DRM has been broken for YEARS...B&amp;N?
Same...Adobe? Yup.
I've transfered everything I bought on my Kindle (and sent back) to my Nook.
Hell, I don't even feel bad about downloading books I PAID FOR.
I've never even worked that hard to get rid of the DRM on these things, there are apps out there that do it for you...sadly, to get my Kindle books now (i.e., when they don't have what I need in B&amp;N's store), I have to download it from Amazon, and use my iPhone to grab the files (i.e., you have to do a backup, and then extract the file from said backup).
Not hard, but tedious.Anyhoo...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30633320</id>
	<title>Re:WTH is Sherman Alexie?</title>
	<author>Uzik2</author>
	<datestamp>1262548020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading his story I can't give him any credibility as a deep thinker about intellectual property. Sorry, don't mean to dump on your favorite author.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading his story I ca n't give him any credibility as a deep thinker about intellectual property .
Sorry , do n't mean to dump on your favorite author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading his story I can't give him any credibility as a deep thinker about intellectual property.
Sorry, don't mean to dump on your favorite author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624830</id>
	<title>Best worst!</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1262462760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some lady with NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE went to my website, copied a page, re-wrote it and posted it on ehow.com with me as the sole reference, just so she would get "points" or what every it is on ehow you get for writing. How annoying is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some lady with NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE went to my website , copied a page , re-wrote it and posted it on ehow.com with me as the sole reference , just so she would get " points " or what every it is on ehow you get for writing .
How annoying is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some lady with NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE went to my website, copied a page, re-wrote it and posted it on ehow.com with me as the sole reference, just so she would get "points" or what every it is on ehow you get for writing.
How annoying is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622538</id>
	<title>Closed source scares me more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that a corporation ( and it is corporations who are behind this - the artists receive 10\% of the purchase price if they are very lucky) can hold the public to ransom over an artefact which has become so widely known and appreciated that it has been transformed into a part of the common culture, is despicable.</p><p>There is a vast difference between a struggling author having his work pirated and consequently being prevented from earning a living, and a work known by everyone, for which the author has already earned a substantial income, being withheld from those who cannot afford to pay the tax.</p><p>The images of the twin towers in flames, the famous publicity shot of Marilyn Monroe standing over the grating, the films I saw in my youth and the books which were held out to me as classics, and which I was forced to read (albeit gladly) are mine just as much as they belong to the corporations which 'own' the various copyrights.</p><p>There is a point at which a creation becomes so widely read or watched, that it ceases to be the possession of just one organisation and an eternal source of revenue for them.</p><p>The politicians who connive with big business to impose these 'taxes' are the real culprits in all this. They are crooks and fraudsters who legislate to legitimise their thievery. Vote them out. Organise and stand for office yourselves. You can do better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that a corporation ( and it is corporations who are behind this - the artists receive 10 \ % of the purchase price if they are very lucky ) can hold the public to ransom over an artefact which has become so widely known and appreciated that it has been transformed into a part of the common culture , is despicable.There is a vast difference between a struggling author having his work pirated and consequently being prevented from earning a living , and a work known by everyone , for which the author has already earned a substantial income , being withheld from those who can not afford to pay the tax.The images of the twin towers in flames , the famous publicity shot of Marilyn Monroe standing over the grating , the films I saw in my youth and the books which were held out to me as classics , and which I was forced to read ( albeit gladly ) are mine just as much as they belong to the corporations which 'own ' the various copyrights.There is a point at which a creation becomes so widely read or watched , that it ceases to be the possession of just one organisation and an eternal source of revenue for them.The politicians who connive with big business to impose these 'taxes ' are the real culprits in all this .
They are crooks and fraudsters who legislate to legitimise their thievery .
Vote them out .
Organise and stand for office yourselves .
You can do better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that a corporation ( and it is corporations who are behind this - the artists receive 10\% of the purchase price if they are very lucky) can hold the public to ransom over an artefact which has become so widely known and appreciated that it has been transformed into a part of the common culture, is despicable.There is a vast difference between a struggling author having his work pirated and consequently being prevented from earning a living, and a work known by everyone, for which the author has already earned a substantial income, being withheld from those who cannot afford to pay the tax.The images of the twin towers in flames, the famous publicity shot of Marilyn Monroe standing over the grating, the films I saw in my youth and the books which were held out to me as classics, and which I was forced to read (albeit gladly) are mine just as much as they belong to the corporations which 'own' the various copyrights.There is a point at which a creation becomes so widely read or watched, that it ceases to be the possession of just one organisation and an eternal source of revenue for them.The politicians who connive with big business to impose these 'taxes' are the real culprits in all this.
They are crooks and fraudsters who legislate to legitimise their thievery.
Vote them out.
Organise and stand for office yourselves.
You can do better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623938</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>msclrhd</author>
	<datestamp>1262457600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you say that people aren't willing to pay for books, music and films?</p><p>Yes, e-books are gaining popularity now that the technology is becoming more portable and easier. This just means that it is easier for some/most people than carrying around/keeping shelves worth of books (compare how much space a season of TV takes up when comparing VHS and DVD).</p><p>Yes, because it is digital it is easier to copy. But what about the people scanning print books to create digital versions of them (legitimately for out of copyright works on sites like guttenberg, or illegally)?</p><p>Pirates will be pirates.</p><p>You say how do people make their money, but lets think about this...<br>
&nbsp; *  2009 is the first time that films in cinemas have grossed over $10 billion!<br>
&nbsp; *  2008's The Dark Knight made over $500 million in the US and over $1 billion worldwide. [1]<br>
&nbsp; *  Avatar has the second biggest opening week performance, below The Dark Knight, and is well set to becoming the 5th film to earn over $1 billion worldwide (Titanic [1997], Lord of  *  the Rings: Return of the King [2003], Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest [2006], The Dark Knight [2008]) -- all when piracy is supposed to be killing the movie industry. [1]<br>
&nbsp; *  Then there are runaway indie hits like Paranormal Activity ($107 miilion for a $15 thousand budget!) [3]</p><p>For music and books, i don't know what the figures are, but:<br>
&nbsp; *  Nine Inch Nails released an album for $4 or $5 (with limited edition versions for a lot more that sold out very quickly) and as a thank you released an album for free under the creative commons license, giving you permission to rework and remix it how you want<br>
&nbsp; *  Sandie Thom's career was launched via a webcast<br>
&nbsp; *  Various artists (such as Helen Austen, Poko Lambro and Lizzie Hibbert) are using YouTube and MySpace to help promote themselves as well as performing in pubs and bars, allowing them to gain a wider fan base<br>
&nbsp; *  The internet and the digital age are helping authors and musicians reach a wider audience (I like a lot of German music artists) -- especially new and upcoming authors and artists (I read quite a bit of internet fiction and buy some of their work where possible as a thank you)<br>
&nbsp; *  Self-publishing sites such as lulu.com are helping would-be authors publish their own work</p><p>The digital book formats are helping would-be authors publish their own works.</p><p>As for advertising, why would I want to have that take up space on a website I am viewing, be forced to watch it on the DVDs I own or have to be interrupted while watching a TV program or film with annoying adverts (Sheila's Wheels, anyone!). If the solution is to put advertising in the middle of electronic books for any of the new books from major publishers, then count me out (same with DRM).</p><p>And before you ask, I buy CDs, DVDs and books (but will be buying more electronic books in the future).</p><p>[1] <a href="http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/#alltime" title="the-numbers.com">http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/#alltime</a> [the-numbers.com]<br>[2] <a href="http://www.movienewsmovietrailers.com/hollywood-breaks-box-office-records-in-2009/90348" title="movienewsm...ailers.com">http://www.movienewsmovietrailers.com/hollywood-breaks-box-office-records-in-2009/90348</a> [movienewsm...ailers.com]<br>[3] <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=paranormalactivity.htm" title="boxofficemojo.com">http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=paranormalactivity.htm</a> [boxofficemojo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you say that people are n't willing to pay for books , music and films ? Yes , e-books are gaining popularity now that the technology is becoming more portable and easier .
This just means that it is easier for some/most people than carrying around/keeping shelves worth of books ( compare how much space a season of TV takes up when comparing VHS and DVD ) .Yes , because it is digital it is easier to copy .
But what about the people scanning print books to create digital versions of them ( legitimately for out of copyright works on sites like guttenberg , or illegally ) ? Pirates will be pirates.You say how do people make their money , but lets think about this.. .   * 2009 is the first time that films in cinemas have grossed over $ 10 billion !
  * 2008 's The Dark Knight made over $ 500 million in the US and over $ 1 billion worldwide .
[ 1 ]   * Avatar has the second biggest opening week performance , below The Dark Knight , and is well set to becoming the 5th film to earn over $ 1 billion worldwide ( Titanic [ 1997 ] , Lord of * the Rings : Return of the King [ 2003 ] , Pirates of the Carribean : Dead Man 's Chest [ 2006 ] , The Dark Knight [ 2008 ] ) -- all when piracy is supposed to be killing the movie industry .
[ 1 ]   * Then there are runaway indie hits like Paranormal Activity ( $ 107 miilion for a $ 15 thousand budget !
) [ 3 ] For music and books , i do n't know what the figures are , but :   * Nine Inch Nails released an album for $ 4 or $ 5 ( with limited edition versions for a lot more that sold out very quickly ) and as a thank you released an album for free under the creative commons license , giving you permission to rework and remix it how you want   * Sandie Thom 's career was launched via a webcast   * Various artists ( such as Helen Austen , Poko Lambro and Lizzie Hibbert ) are using YouTube and MySpace to help promote themselves as well as performing in pubs and bars , allowing them to gain a wider fan base   * The internet and the digital age are helping authors and musicians reach a wider audience ( I like a lot of German music artists ) -- especially new and upcoming authors and artists ( I read quite a bit of internet fiction and buy some of their work where possible as a thank you )   * Self-publishing sites such as lulu.com are helping would-be authors publish their own workThe digital book formats are helping would-be authors publish their own works.As for advertising , why would I want to have that take up space on a website I am viewing , be forced to watch it on the DVDs I own or have to be interrupted while watching a TV program or film with annoying adverts ( Sheila 's Wheels , anyone ! ) .
If the solution is to put advertising in the middle of electronic books for any of the new books from major publishers , then count me out ( same with DRM ) .And before you ask , I buy CDs , DVDs and books ( but will be buying more electronic books in the future ) .
[ 1 ] http : //www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/ # alltime [ the-numbers.com ] [ 2 ] http : //www.movienewsmovietrailers.com/hollywood-breaks-box-office-records-in-2009/90348 [ movienewsm...ailers.com ] [ 3 ] http : //boxofficemojo.com/movies/ ? id = paranormalactivity.htm [ boxofficemojo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you say that people aren't willing to pay for books, music and films?Yes, e-books are gaining popularity now that the technology is becoming more portable and easier.
This just means that it is easier for some/most people than carrying around/keeping shelves worth of books (compare how much space a season of TV takes up when comparing VHS and DVD).Yes, because it is digital it is easier to copy.
But what about the people scanning print books to create digital versions of them (legitimately for out of copyright works on sites like guttenberg, or illegally)?Pirates will be pirates.You say how do people make their money, but lets think about this...
  *  2009 is the first time that films in cinemas have grossed over $10 billion!
  *  2008's The Dark Knight made over $500 million in the US and over $1 billion worldwide.
[1]
  *  Avatar has the second biggest opening week performance, below The Dark Knight, and is well set to becoming the 5th film to earn over $1 billion worldwide (Titanic [1997], Lord of  *  the Rings: Return of the King [2003], Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest [2006], The Dark Knight [2008]) -- all when piracy is supposed to be killing the movie industry.
[1]
  *  Then there are runaway indie hits like Paranormal Activity ($107 miilion for a $15 thousand budget!
) [3]For music and books, i don't know what the figures are, but:
  *  Nine Inch Nails released an album for $4 or $5 (with limited edition versions for a lot more that sold out very quickly) and as a thank you released an album for free under the creative commons license, giving you permission to rework and remix it how you want
  *  Sandie Thom's career was launched via a webcast
  *  Various artists (such as Helen Austen, Poko Lambro and Lizzie Hibbert) are using YouTube and MySpace to help promote themselves as well as performing in pubs and bars, allowing them to gain a wider fan base
  *  The internet and the digital age are helping authors and musicians reach a wider audience (I like a lot of German music artists) -- especially new and upcoming authors and artists (I read quite a bit of internet fiction and buy some of their work where possible as a thank you)
  *  Self-publishing sites such as lulu.com are helping would-be authors publish their own workThe digital book formats are helping would-be authors publish their own works.As for advertising, why would I want to have that take up space on a website I am viewing, be forced to watch it on the DVDs I own or have to be interrupted while watching a TV program or film with annoying adverts (Sheila's Wheels, anyone!).
If the solution is to put advertising in the middle of electronic books for any of the new books from major publishers, then count me out (same with DRM).And before you ask, I buy CDs, DVDs and books (but will be buying more electronic books in the future).
[1] http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/#alltime [the-numbers.com][2] http://www.movienewsmovietrailers.com/hollywood-breaks-box-office-records-in-2009/90348 [movienewsm...ailers.com][3] http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=paranormalactivity.htm [boxofficemojo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629542</id>
	<title>Correlation != Causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers."</p></div><p>Or rather, the folks who buy the most books have switched to eBooks.</p><p>Also, anybody have any numbers on folks copying/scanning/sharing paper books?  'Cause I'd bet there's quite a bit of that, as well.  A little easier if the publisher digitizes it for 'em, but probably not game-changing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
" Or rather , the folks who buy the most books have switched to eBooks.Also , anybody have any numbers on folks copying/scanning/sharing paper books ?
'Cause I 'd bet there 's quite a bit of that , as well .
A little easier if the publisher digitizes it for 'em , but probably not game-changing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
"Or rather, the folks who buy the most books have switched to eBooks.Also, anybody have any numbers on folks copying/scanning/sharing paper books?
'Cause I'd bet there's quite a bit of that, as well.
A little easier if the publisher digitizes it for 'em, but probably not game-changing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625076</id>
	<title>ownership is a fiction</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1262464080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that an author or inventor "owns" their work is a fiction.  All you ever get is a temporary monopoly on making copies of it.  From day one, people can modify it, make fun of it, satirize it, and burn it if they like.  It's <i>temporary</i> because copyright is actually intended to encourage reuse of content.  That is, increasing the public domain is the objective of copyright law, and the temporary monopoly a means to that end--a necessary evil.</p><p>Many of the greatest works of human literature, art, and music were created before copyright.  Not only did they get created, they frequently reused prior works liberally.</p><p>And there is no reason whatsoever why we should change that; in fact, if anything, we should reduce copyright and patent terms because they clearly are not working right.</p><p>Open source is merely reminding people of what copyright and fair use were actually intended to do: encourage creation, distribution, and reuse of content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that an author or inventor " owns " their work is a fiction .
All you ever get is a temporary monopoly on making copies of it .
From day one , people can modify it , make fun of it , satirize it , and burn it if they like .
It 's temporary because copyright is actually intended to encourage reuse of content .
That is , increasing the public domain is the objective of copyright law , and the temporary monopoly a means to that end--a necessary evil.Many of the greatest works of human literature , art , and music were created before copyright .
Not only did they get created , they frequently reused prior works liberally.And there is no reason whatsoever why we should change that ; in fact , if anything , we should reduce copyright and patent terms because they clearly are not working right.Open source is merely reminding people of what copyright and fair use were actually intended to do : encourage creation , distribution , and reuse of content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that an author or inventor "owns" their work is a fiction.
All you ever get is a temporary monopoly on making copies of it.
From day one, people can modify it, make fun of it, satirize it, and burn it if they like.
It's temporary because copyright is actually intended to encourage reuse of content.
That is, increasing the public domain is the objective of copyright law, and the temporary monopoly a means to that end--a necessary evil.Many of the greatest works of human literature, art, and music were created before copyright.
Not only did they get created, they frequently reused prior works liberally.And there is no reason whatsoever why we should change that; in fact, if anything, we should reduce copyright and patent terms because they clearly are not working right.Open source is merely reminding people of what copyright and fair use were actually intended to do: encourage creation, distribution, and reuse of content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622192</id>
	<title>Isn't the Library already a way to get books free?</title>
	<author>taloobie</author>
	<datestamp>1262447280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gosh... books have been free to read for a very long time.  It's called a library.  So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why don't they cut libraries off?  Gimme a break.

There are many ways to use the digital mediums ease of distribution to make money/protect artistic ownership.

Publishers should consider giving away a very basic digital version of a book, could even make it time sensitive.  It would be very cool and very useful to have a world wide public library.  Perhaps that seems unreasonable to police... but the reality is people can get whatever written material they want without buying it from a Borders store... and that isn't because of "ebooks".  been this way for a very long time.

The great books will be purchased by enough people to make money (my gosh, how many copies of LOTR, the Bible, etc. does everyone own... and those books are very easy to get for free!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh... books have been free to read for a very long time .
It 's called a library .
So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why do n't they cut libraries off ?
Gim me a break .
There are many ways to use the digital mediums ease of distribution to make money/protect artistic ownership .
Publishers should consider giving away a very basic digital version of a book , could even make it time sensitive .
It would be very cool and very useful to have a world wide public library .
Perhaps that seems unreasonable to police... but the reality is people can get whatever written material they want without buying it from a Borders store... and that is n't because of " ebooks " .
been this way for a very long time .
The great books will be purchased by enough people to make money ( my gosh , how many copies of LOTR , the Bible , etc .
does everyone own... and those books are very easy to get for free !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh... books have been free to read for a very long time.
It's called a library.
So if authors and publishers are worried about piracy of books why don't they cut libraries off?
Gimme a break.
There are many ways to use the digital mediums ease of distribution to make money/protect artistic ownership.
Publishers should consider giving away a very basic digital version of a book, could even make it time sensitive.
It would be very cool and very useful to have a world wide public library.
Perhaps that seems unreasonable to police... but the reality is people can get whatever written material they want without buying it from a Borders store... and that isn't because of "ebooks".
been this way for a very long time.
The great books will be purchased by enough people to make money (my gosh, how many copies of LOTR, the Bible, etc.
does everyone own... and those books are very easy to get for free!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is worse than that -- the person in question doesn't even know what is happening in his own profession.  From TFA,<br> <br>

"I'd be really worried if I were Stephen King..."<br> <br>

Stephen King has already released a no-DRM ebook and made a lot of money from it, by releasing it piece by piece and requiring a certain minimum number of paid downloads before the next part of the story is released; this was discontinued because King himself could not figure out where to take the story.  Perhaps if these people spent less time whining about how their fans are not paying their publishers, they could be more aware of how the Internet can change things and how they can use computers to publish their stories in new ways, connect with their fans, and provide their books to more people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is worse than that -- the person in question does n't even know what is happening in his own profession .
From TFA , " I 'd be really worried if I were Stephen King... " Stephen King has already released a no-DRM ebook and made a lot of money from it , by releasing it piece by piece and requiring a certain minimum number of paid downloads before the next part of the story is released ; this was discontinued because King himself could not figure out where to take the story .
Perhaps if these people spent less time whining about how their fans are not paying their publishers , they could be more aware of how the Internet can change things and how they can use computers to publish their stories in new ways , connect with their fans , and provide their books to more people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is worse than that -- the person in question doesn't even know what is happening in his own profession.
From TFA, 

"I'd be really worried if I were Stephen King..." 

Stephen King has already released a no-DRM ebook and made a lot of money from it, by releasing it piece by piece and requiring a certain minimum number of paid downloads before the next part of the story is released; this was discontinued because King himself could not figure out where to take the story.
Perhaps if these people spent less time whining about how their fans are not paying their publishers, they could be more aware of how the Internet can change things and how they can use computers to publish their stories in new ways, connect with their fans, and provide their books to more people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270</id>
	<title>Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies him</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262447820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of <b>taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity</b> - of artistic <b>monopoly</b> -- goes away. It terrifies me."

There, fixed that for you, Mr. Alexie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" With the open-source culture on the Internet , the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away .
It terrifies me .
" There , fixed that for you , Mr. Alexie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity - of artistic monopoly -- goes away.
It terrifies me.
"

There, fixed that for you, Mr. Alexie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624360</id>
	<title>Amazon - Not the only seller of books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262459700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers."</p><p>Peraps thats because kindle books ONLY come from Amazon but others can be brought at many outlets !  (Idiots)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy , on average , 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers .
" Peraps thats because kindle books ONLY come from Amazon but others can be brought at many outlets !
( Idiots )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
"Peraps thats because kindle books ONLY come from Amazon but others can be brought at many outlets !
(Idiots)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622772</id>
	<title>pirates?</title>
	<author>louden obscure</author>
	<datestamp>1262451660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where the hell are the boats?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where the hell are the boats ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where the hell are the boats?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629552</id>
	<title>loser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sherman Alexie is an idiot. I saw him on the daily-show, acting like a moron because no-one would come to his book signing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sherman Alexie is an idiot .
I saw him on the daily-show , acting like a moron because no-one would come to his book signing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sherman Alexie is an idiot.
I saw him on the daily-show, acting like a moron because no-one would come to his book signing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624202</id>
	<title>correlation =! causation.</title>
	<author>yanqui</author>
	<datestamp>1262458800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know this guy used the phrase "open source" completely wrong, but lets just ignore that really quickly. My immediate reaction was "bullshit, I was in to piracy way before I was in to open source." I'm actually far more responsible with intellectual property now that I'm in to the whole open source thing. Instead of "stealing" software I can't afford I just track down an open source alternative (that's usually better). I no longer pirate closed source software, I just avoid it whenever possible. I haven't pirated any software since I switched to open source, so clearly OSS *prevents* rather than promotes piracy... for me anyway.


The title of the article suggests that open source leads to piracy, but, as we all know, correlation =! causation.  Piracy and open source are both based on a recognition of the failures of IP. Many technologically astute members of my generation (those raised with the internet at least starting as teenagers) grew up in a culture of "share everything"/"everything is free" and therefore often reject IP as absurd. Our kids didn't need to know all the good mp3/warez sites, they've grown up with broadband, youtube, and instant access to everything.


The article could have as easily been labeled "Novelist, who completely fails to graps technological and cultural developments, complains about kids on lawn."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this guy used the phrase " open source " completely wrong , but lets just ignore that really quickly .
My immediate reaction was " bullshit , I was in to piracy way before I was in to open source .
" I 'm actually far more responsible with intellectual property now that I 'm in to the whole open source thing .
Instead of " stealing " software I ca n't afford I just track down an open source alternative ( that 's usually better ) .
I no longer pirate closed source software , I just avoid it whenever possible .
I have n't pirated any software since I switched to open source , so clearly OSS * prevents * rather than promotes piracy... for me anyway .
The title of the article suggests that open source leads to piracy , but , as we all know , correlation = !
causation. Piracy and open source are both based on a recognition of the failures of IP .
Many technologically astute members of my generation ( those raised with the internet at least starting as teenagers ) grew up in a culture of " share everything " / " everything is free " and therefore often reject IP as absurd .
Our kids did n't need to know all the good mp3/warez sites , they 've grown up with broadband , youtube , and instant access to everything .
The article could have as easily been labeled " Novelist , who completely fails to graps technological and cultural developments , complains about kids on lawn .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this guy used the phrase "open source" completely wrong, but lets just ignore that really quickly.
My immediate reaction was "bullshit, I was in to piracy way before I was in to open source.
" I'm actually far more responsible with intellectual property now that I'm in to the whole open source thing.
Instead of "stealing" software I can't afford I just track down an open source alternative (that's usually better).
I no longer pirate closed source software, I just avoid it whenever possible.
I haven't pirated any software since I switched to open source, so clearly OSS *prevents* rather than promotes piracy... for me anyway.
The title of the article suggests that open source leads to piracy, but, as we all know, correlation =!
causation.  Piracy and open source are both based on a recognition of the failures of IP.
Many technologically astute members of my generation (those raised with the internet at least starting as teenagers) grew up in a culture of "share everything"/"everything is free" and therefore often reject IP as absurd.
Our kids didn't need to know all the good mp3/warez sites, they've grown up with broadband, youtube, and instant access to everything.
The article could have as easily been labeled "Novelist, who completely fails to graps technological and cultural developments, complains about kids on lawn.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623404</id>
	<title>Re:Elimination of artificial scarcity terrifies hi</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1262454960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing. (I.e. artificial scarcity). It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.etc. whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.</p></div></blockquote><p>As a software engineer, I don't. I get paid by the hour or by the project. I couldn't care less what happens with my work afterwards.</p><p>Most of my work is on custom internal applications and not things sold on the shelf. You can pirate it all you want, but it's not made for you, so you're unlikely to find it useful, and even if you can use it you'll still need to pay somebody to adjust it to your needs.</p><p>I've written open source software for money. It's easy. Customer says "I want this software to be able to do X". I look at it, negotiate with the customer, do the work and get the money. Modification gets released under the license of the original project (was GPL2). Maybe some other programmer somewhere will get money in the future for building on my work, and so on.</p><blockquote><div><p>Take the iPhone for example. The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference. The real difference is in the design - I.e. pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied. Yet another company can't just use that information without Apple's permission - I.e. they can't just go off an make their own iPhone. Is this "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity" bad?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes. I'd like to have companies competing to make the best phone possible. For that purpose, it'd be best if any company could create a phone with any design it wanted, without being restricted by patents.</p><blockquote><div><p>Or take Windows or any other peace of commercial software. It's purely information so the fact that I'm not free to copy and use it as much as I want must be "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity". Is this bad?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes. Attempting to keep it from being copied imposes a cost on society that I think we'd be better without.</p><blockquote><div><p>The point is that making this information takes very real time and effort, whether it's designing a phone (or car or whatever), writing software, making a movie/song, or in this case writing a book. So what is so wrong with people having the right to demand payment for allowing people to utilise (Be it for entertainment, business or whatever) the information they have worked hard to create?</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not against work being paid for, I simply think work is something that should be paid for at the time it's performed. A programmer can charge by the hour/project, a musician can charge for creating a song, and so on. Then we don't need the entire messy copyright thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing .
( I.e. artificial scarcity ) .
It 's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc .
whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.As a software engineer , I do n't .
I get paid by the hour or by the project .
I could n't care less what happens with my work afterwards.Most of my work is on custom internal applications and not things sold on the shelf .
You can pirate it all you want , but it 's not made for you , so you 're unlikely to find it useful , and even if you can use it you 'll still need to pay somebody to adjust it to your needs.I 've written open source software for money .
It 's easy .
Customer says " I want this software to be able to do X " .
I look at it , negotiate with the customer , do the work and get the money .
Modification gets released under the license of the original project ( was GPL2 ) .
Maybe some other programmer somewhere will get money in the future for building on my work , and so on.Take the iPhone for example .
The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference .
The real difference is in the design - I.e .
pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied .
Yet another company ca n't just use that information without Apple 's permission - I.e .
they ca n't just go off an make their own iPhone .
Is this " taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity " bad ? Yes .
I 'd like to have companies competing to make the best phone possible .
For that purpose , it 'd be best if any company could create a phone with any design it wanted , without being restricted by patents.Or take Windows or any other peace of commercial software .
It 's purely information so the fact that I 'm not free to copy and use it as much as I want must be " taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity " .
Is this bad ? Yes .
Attempting to keep it from being copied imposes a cost on society that I think we 'd be better without.The point is that making this information takes very real time and effort , whether it 's designing a phone ( or car or whatever ) , writing software , making a movie/song , or in this case writing a book .
So what is so wrong with people having the right to demand payment for allowing people to utilise ( Be it for entertainment , business or whatever ) the information they have worked hard to create ? I 'm not against work being paid for , I simply think work is something that should be paid for at the time it 's performed .
A programmer can charge by the hour/project , a musician can charge for creating a song , and so on .
Then we do n't need the entire messy copyright thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered why so many people on slashdot find the right to profit of your creation to be such a bad thing.
(I.e. artificial scarcity).
It's especially odd for a site full of software engineers .etc.
whose livelihood often depends on artificial scarcity.As a software engineer, I don't.
I get paid by the hour or by the project.
I couldn't care less what happens with my work afterwards.Most of my work is on custom internal applications and not things sold on the shelf.
You can pirate it all you want, but it's not made for you, so you're unlikely to find it useful, and even if you can use it you'll still need to pay somebody to adjust it to your needs.I've written open source software for money.
It's easy.
Customer says "I want this software to be able to do X".
I look at it, negotiate with the customer, do the work and get the money.
Modification gets released under the license of the original project (was GPL2).
Maybe some other programmer somewhere will get money in the future for building on my work, and so on.Take the iPhone for example.
The materials that go into making an iPhone and those that go into making your average run of the mill phone are certainly not different enough to justify the price difference.
The real difference is in the design - I.e.
pure information with effectively no-limits to the amount it can be copied.
Yet another company can't just use that information without Apple's permission - I.e.
they can't just go off an make their own iPhone.
Is this "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity" bad?Yes.
I'd like to have companies competing to make the best phone possible.
For that purpose, it'd be best if any company could create a phone with any design it wanted, without being restricted by patents.Or take Windows or any other peace of commercial software.
It's purely information so the fact that I'm not free to copy and use it as much as I want must be "taxpayer-funded artificial scarcity".
Is this bad?Yes.
Attempting to keep it from being copied imposes a cost on society that I think we'd be better without.The point is that making this information takes very real time and effort, whether it's designing a phone (or car or whatever), writing software, making a movie/song, or in this case writing a book.
So what is so wrong with people having the right to demand payment for allowing people to utilise (Be it for entertainment, business or whatever) the information they have worked hard to create?I'm not against work being paid for, I simply think work is something that should be paid for at the time it's performed.
A programmer can charge by the hour/project, a musician can charge for creating a song, and so on.
Then we don't need the entire messy copyright thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623808</id>
	<title>Re:BZZZZT WRONG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open Source != Entitlement<br> <br>

The author seems to be confusing the idea of open source with the idea of "I deserve this without paying for it."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source ! = Entitlement The author seems to be confusing the idea of open source with the idea of " I deserve this without paying for it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Source != Entitlement 

The author seems to be confusing the idea of open source with the idea of "I deserve this without paying for it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623064</id>
	<title>Re:So a question for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how then do the creators of it eat? What do they do to make money? Their works are no longer viable. This means they have to get other jobs.</p></div><p>Being a writer, and having many writer friends (published and unpublished), I find it hilarious that people think that writers and artists can actually support themselves without having a day time job.  How many writers and artists do you think pursue writing and art as a full-time career?  A handful at most.  The writers who have written the books you read have other jobs: professors, teachers, translators, editors, retail reps, etc.

Believe me, an artist creates from an inherent need to create, not because they see money signs at the end of the tunnel.  I don't think anyone goes into art expecting to become the next Haruki Murakami or Lady Gaga.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how then do the creators of it eat ?
What do they do to make money ?
Their works are no longer viable .
This means they have to get other jobs.Being a writer , and having many writer friends ( published and unpublished ) , I find it hilarious that people think that writers and artists can actually support themselves without having a day time job .
How many writers and artists do you think pursue writing and art as a full-time career ?
A handful at most .
The writers who have written the books you read have other jobs : professors , teachers , translators , editors , retail reps , etc .
Believe me , an artist creates from an inherent need to create , not because they see money signs at the end of the tunnel .
I do n't think anyone goes into art expecting to become the next Haruki Murakami or Lady Gaga .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how then do the creators of it eat?
What do they do to make money?
Their works are no longer viable.
This means they have to get other jobs.Being a writer, and having many writer friends (published and unpublished), I find it hilarious that people think that writers and artists can actually support themselves without having a day time job.
How many writers and artists do you think pursue writing and art as a full-time career?
A handful at most.
The writers who have written the books you read have other jobs: professors, teachers, translators, editors, retail reps, etc.
Believe me, an artist creates from an inherent need to create, not because they see money signs at the end of the tunnel.
I don't think anyone goes into art expecting to become the next Haruki Murakami or Lady Gaga.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623140</id>
	<title>Re:sounds familiar</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1262453460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>when my favorite writers put out a book i buy it. they just don't as often as i'd like and the new writers that are getting fronted i'm not impressed by.</p></div><p>But when a new independent writer puts out parts of his/her material online for free checking it out becomes a lot easier. Though I shall agree; most of what is actively marketed these days are not to my particular liking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when my favorite writers put out a book i buy it .
they just do n't as often as i 'd like and the new writers that are getting fronted i 'm not impressed by.But when a new independent writer puts out parts of his/her material online for free checking it out becomes a lot easier .
Though I shall agree ; most of what is actively marketed these days are not to my particular liking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when my favorite writers put out a book i buy it.
they just don't as often as i'd like and the new writers that are getting fronted i'm not impressed by.But when a new independent writer puts out parts of his/her material online for free checking it out becomes a lot easier.
Though I shall agree; most of what is actively marketed these days are not to my particular liking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622194</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30630292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30633320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30638520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30626326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30634020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30626096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1257224_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30634020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30633320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30629618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30630292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30626326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30638520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30626096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623122
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30624804
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627326
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623710
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625462
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625362
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30625192
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30627456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30623064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1257224.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1257224.30622214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
